The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/13/2023 STUDY SESSION AGENDA PACKET______________________________________________________________ CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 100, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473-5280 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2023 CITY COUNCIL HYBRID STUDY SESSION AGENDA Starting at 5:00 PM in the First Floor Meeting Chambers The First Floor Meeting Chambers will be open to the public to attend the Study Session in-person, but there will be no opportunities for input. However, public questions or comments may be submitted at any time to City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us. Please remember that the content of the Agenda Bill items is subject to change; and no action at the Study Session is anticipated. If approved by the Council, these items will be placed on the December 20, 2023 City Council Meeting Agenda, or as indicated…  Members of the public may click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87318266756?pwd=ZWlMVnVYbFBHYjY5U1RJUmFreDFXUT09  Or One tap mobile: US: +12532050468,,87318266756#,,,,*857582# or +12532158782,,87318266756#,,,,*857582#  Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 6833 Webinar ID: 873 1826 6756 Passcode: 857582 A. BRIEFINGS ON AGENDA BILL ITEMS 1. Acceptance of Transportation Alternatives Program Grant from PSRC; and Approval of Local Agency Agreement with WSDOT for the Naval Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Project 2. Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5464 establishing the City of Bremerton’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5477 3. Acceptance of the 2024-2025 Public Defense Improvement Grant from the Washington State Office of Public Defense for the Bremerton Municipal Court 4. Affiliation Agreement with Pierce College for Paramedic Student Training 5. Mutual Aid Interlocal Agreement for Tactical Emergency Medical Support Services 6. Interagency Agreement with WA State Department of Natural Resources 7. Resolution to accept the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 8. Resolution to confirm the Administration’s Recommendation to Develop a Low-Barrier Walk- up Congregate Homeless Shelter at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue North 9. Acceptance of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s 2024 Funding Recommendations 10. Resolution to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism B. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Social Media Guidelines for Elected Officials – Council President Jeff Coughlin 2. Public Works Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 11/21/2023) – Chair Anna Mockler Continued on next page… 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. 3. Audit Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 11/27/2023) – Chair Anna Mockler 4. Public Safety Committee Briefing (Last Meeting 12/5/2023) – Chair Denise Frey 5. Regional and Other Committee/Board Briefings 6. Other General Council Business (As necessary, and as time allows…) C. ADJOURNMENT OF STUDY SESSION AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Acceptance of Transportation Alternatives Program Grant from PSRC; and Approval of Local Agency Agreement with WSDOT for the Naval Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Project COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: Engineering Presenter: Chris Dimmitt Phone: (360) 473-2307 SUMMARY: The City has been offered a Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Grant from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to acquire right of way for Phase II of the Naval Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian project. Phase II is between 11th St and 15th St on Naval Avenue. The grant amount is $899,600 and requires a City match of 13.5% ($140,400) for a total of $1,040,000. The offered grant will be in WSDOT Standard Forms, with their standard terms and conditions. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Grant Award Letter, 2) Local Agency Agreement (blank) FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): The grant requires a City match of $140,400. The match will be funded by REET. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept TAP Grant; and approve the Local Agency Agreement with WSDOT for the Naval Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Project; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/09/2021 A1 Page 1 Revised 01/2022 Local Agency Agreement Agency Address CFDA No. 20.205 - Highway Planning and Construction (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) Project No. Agreement No. For WSDOT Use Only The Local Agency having complied, or hereby agreeing to comply, with the terms and conditions set forth in (1) Title 23, U.S. Code Highways, (2) the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) 2 CFR Part 200, (4) 2 CFR Part 180 – certifying that the local agency is not excluded from receiving Federal funds by a Federal suspension or debarment, (5) the policies and procedures promulgated by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and (6) the federal aid project agreement entered into between the State and Federal Government, relative to the above project, the Washington State Department of Transportation will authorize the Local Agency to proceed on the project by a separate notification. Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount shown herein on line r, column 3, without written authority by the State, subject to the approval of the Federal Highway Administration. All project costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. Project Description Name Length Termini Description of Work Project Agreement End Date Claiming Indirect Cost Rate Yes NoProposed Advertisement Date Type of Work Estimate of Funding(1) Estimated Total Project Funds (2) Estimated Agency Funds (3) Estimated Federal FundsPE %a. Agency b. OtherFederal Aid Participation Ratio for PE c. Other d. State e. Total PE Cost Estimate (a+b+c+d)Right of Way %f. Agency g. OtherFederal Aid Participation Ratio for RW h. Other i. State j. Total R/W Cost Estimate (f+g+h+i)Construction %k. Contract l. Other m. OtherFederal Aid Participation Ratio for CN n. Other o. Agency p. State q. Total CN Cost Estimate (k+l+m+n+o+p) r. Total Project Cost Estimate (e+j+q) DOT Form 140-039 Washington State Department of Transportation By Director, Local Program Agency Official By Title Date Executed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DOT Form 140-039 Page 2 Revised 01/2022 Construction Method of Financing (Check Method Selected) State Ad and Award Method A - Advance Payment - Agency Share of total construction cost (based on contract award) Method B - Withhold from gas tax the Agency’s share of total construction coast (line 5, column 2) in the amount of $ at $ per month for months. Local Force or Local Ad and Award Method C - Agency cost incurred with partial reimbursement The Local Agency further stipulates that pursuant to said Title 23, regulations and policies and procedures, and as a condition to payment of the federal funds obligated, it accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions set forth below. Adopted by official action on , , Resolution/Ordinance No. Provisions I. Scope of Work The Agency shall provide all the work, labor, materials, and services necessary to perform the project which is described and set forth in detail in the “Project Description” and “Type of Work.” When the State acts for and on behalf of the Agency, the State shall be deemed an agent of the Agency and shall perform the services described and indicated in “Type of Work” on the face of this agreement, in accordance with plans and specifications as proposed by the Agency and approved by the State and the Federal Highway Administration. When the State acts for the Agency but is not subject to the right of control by the Agency, the State shall have the right to perform the work subject to the ordinary procedures of the State and Federal Highway Administration. II. Delegation of Authority The State is willing to fulfill the responsibilities to the Federal Government by the administration of this project. The Agency agrees that the State shall have the full authority to carry out this administration. The State shall review, process, and approve documents required for federal aid reimbursement in accordance with federal requirements. If the State advertises and awards the contract, the State will further act for the Agency in all matters concerning the project as requested by the Agency. If the Local Agency advertises and awards the project, the State shall review the work to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. III. Project Administration Certain types of work and services shall be provided by the State on this project as requested by the Agency and described in the Type of Work above. In addition, the State will furnish qualified personnel for the supervision and inspection of the work in progress. On Local Agency advertised and awarded projects, the supervision and inspection shall be limited to ensuring all work is in conformance with approved plans, specifications, and federal aid requirements. The salary of such engineer or other supervisor and all other salaries and costs incurred by State forces upon the project will be considered a cost thereof. All costs related to this project incurred by employees of the State in the customary manner on highway payrolls and vouchers shall be charged as costs of the project. IV. Availability of Records All project records in support of all costs incurred and actual expenditures kept by the Agency are to be maintained in accordance with local government accounting procedures prescribed by the Washington State Auditor’s Office, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The records shall be open to inspection by the State and Federal Government at all reasonable times and shall be retained and made available for such inspection for a period of not less than three years from the final payment of any federal aid funds to the Agency. Copies of said records shall be furnished to the State and/or Federal Government upon request. V. Compliance with Provisions The Agency shall not incur any federal aid participation costs on any classification of work on this project until authorized in writing by the State for each classification. The classifications of work for projects are: 1. Preliminary engineering. 2. Right of way acquisition. 3. Project construction. Once written authorization is given, the Agency agrees to show continuous progress through monthly billings. Failure to show continuous progress may result the Agency’s project becoming inactive, as described in 23 CFR 630, and subject to de-obligation of federal aid funds and/or agreement closure. If right of way acquisition, or actual construction of the road for which preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which preliminary engineering phase was authorized, the Agency will repay to the State the sum or sums of federal funds paid to the Agency under the terms of this agreement (see Section IX). If actual construction of the road for which right of way has been purchased is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the right of way phase was authorized, the Agency will repay to the State the sum or sums of federal funds paid to the Agency under the terms of this agreement (see Section IX). DOT Form 140-039 Page 3 Revised 01/2022 The Agency agrees that all stages of construction necessary to provide the initially planned complete facility within the limits of this project will conform to at least the minimum values set by approved statewide design standards applicable to this class of highways, even though such additional work is financed without federal aid participation. The Agency agrees that on federal aid highway construction projects, the current federal aid regulations which apply to liquidated damages relative to the basis of federal participation in the project cost shall be applicable in the event the contractor fails to complete the contract within the contract time. VI. Payment and Partial Reimbursement The total cost of the project, including all review and engineering costs and other expenses of the State, is to be paid by the Agency and by the Federal Government. Federal funding shall be in accordance with the Federal Transportation Act, as amended, 2 CFR Part 200. The State shall not be ultimately responsible for any of the costs of the project. The Agency shall be ultimately responsible for all costs associated with the project which are not reimbursed by the Federal Government. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a promise by the State as to the amount or nature of federal participation in this project. The Agency shall bill the state for federal aid project costs incurred in conformity with applicable federal and state laws. The agency shall minimize the time elapsed between receipt of federal aid funds and subsequent payment of incurred costs. Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance, general administration, supervision, and other overhead shall not be eligible for federal participation unless a current indirect cost plan has been prepared in accordance with the regulations outlined in 2 CFR Part 200 - Uniform Admin Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and retained for audit. The State will pay for State incurred costs on the project. Following payment, the State shall bill the Federal Government for reimbursement of those costs eligible for federal participation to the extent that such costs are attributable and properly allocable to this project. The State shall bill the Agency for that portion of State costs which were not reimbursed by the Federal Government (see Section IX). 1. Project Construction Costs Project construction financing will be accomplished by one of the three methods as indicated in this agreement. Method A – The Agency will place with the State, within (20) days after the execution of the construction contract, an advance in the amount of the Agency’s share of the total construction cost based on the contract award. The State will notify the Agency of the exact amount to be deposited with the State. The State will pay all costs incurred under the contract upon presentation of progress billings from the contractor. Following such payments, the State will submit a billing to the Federal Government for the federal aid participation share of the cost. When the project is substantially completed and final actual costs of the project can be determined, the State will present the Agency with a final billing showing the amount due the State or the amount due the Agency. This billing will be cleared by either a payment from the Agency to the State or by a refund from the State to the Agency. Method B – The Agency’s share of the total construction cost as shown on the face of this agreement shall be withheld from its monthly fuel tax allotments. The face of this agreement establishes the months in which the withholding shall take place and the exact amount to be withheld each month. The extent of withholding will be confirmed by letter from the State at the time of contract award. Upon receipt of progress billings from the contractor, the State will submit such billings to the Federal Government for payment of its participating portion of such billings. Method C – The Agency may submit vouchers to the State in the format prescribed by the State, in duplicate, not more than once per month for those costs eligible for Federal participation to the extent that such costs are directly attributable and properly allocable to this project. Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance, general administration, supervision, and other overhead shall not be eligible for Federal participation unless claimed under a previously approved indirect cost plan. The State shall reimburse the Agency for the Federal share of eligible project costs up to the amount shown on the face of this agreement. At the time of audit, the Agency will provide documentation of all costs incurred on the project. The State shall bill the Agency for all costs incurred by the State relative to the project. The State shall also bill the Agency for the federal funds paid by the State to the Agency for project costs which are subsequently determined to be ineligible for federal participation (see Section IX). VII. Audit of Federal Consultant Contracts The Agency, if services of a consultant are required, shall be responsible for audit of the consultant’s records to determine eligible federal aid costs on the project. The report of said audit shall be in the Agency’s files and made available to the State and the Federal Government. An audit shall be conducted by the WSDOT Internal Audit Office in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards as issued by the United States General Accounting Office by the Comptroller General of the United States; WSDOT Manual M 27-50, Consultant Authorization, Selection, and Agreement Administration; memoranda of understanding between WSDOT and FHWA; and 2 CFR Part 200.501 - Audit Requirements. If upon audit it is found that overpayment or participation of federal money in ineligible items of cost has occurred, the Agency shall reimburse the State for the amount of such overpayment or excess participation (see Section IX). VIII. Single Audit Act The Agency, as a subrecipient of federal funds, shall adhere to the federal regulations outlined in 2 CFR Part 200.501 as well as all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations. A subrecipient who expends $750,000 or more in federal awards from all sources during a given fiscal year shall have a single or program-specific audit performed for that year in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR Part 200.501. Upon conclusion of the audit, the Agency shall be responsible for ensuring that a copy of the report is transmitted promptly to the State. DOT Form 140-039 Page 4 Revised 01/2022 IX. Payment of Billing The Agency agrees that if payment or arrangement for payment of any of the State’s billing relative to the project (e.g., State force work, project cancellation, overpayment, cost ineligible for federal participation, etc.) is not made to the State within 45 days after the Agency has been billed, the State shall effect reimbursement of the total sum due from the regular monthly fuel tax allotments to the Agency from the Motor Vehicle Fund. No additional Federal project funding will be approved until full payment is received unless otherwise directed by the Director, Local Programs. Project Agreement End Date - This date is based on your projects Period of Performance (2 CFR Part 200.309). Any costs incurred after the Project Agreement End Date are NOT eligible for federal reimbursement. All eligible costs incurred prior to the Project Agreement End Date must be submitted for reimbursement within 60 days after the Project Agreement End Date or they become ineligible for federal reimbursement. X. Traffic Control, Signing, Marking, and Roadway Maintenance The Agency will not permit any changes to be made in the provisions for parking regulations and traffic control on this project without prior approval of the State and Federal Highway Administration. The Agency will not install or permit to be installed any signs, signals, or markings not in conformance with the standards approved by the Federal Highway Administration and MUTCD. The Agency will, at its own expense, maintain the improvement covered by this agreement. XI. Indemnity The Agency shall hold the Federal Government and the State harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits, whether at law or equity brought against the Agency, State, or Federal Government, arising from the Agency’s execution, performance, or failure to perform any of the provisions of this agreement, or of any other agreement or contract connected with this agreement, or arising by reason of the participation of the State or Federal Government in the project, PROVIDED, nothing herein shall require the Agency to reimburse the State or the Federal Government for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the Federal Government or the State. XII. Nondiscrimination Provision No liability shall attach to the State or Federal Government except as expressly provided herein. The Agency shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any USDOT- assisted contract and/or agreement or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of USDOT-assisted contracts and agreements. The WSDOT’s DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by USDOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the Agency of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S. C. 3801 et seq.). The Agency hereby agrees that it will incorporate or cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification thereof, as defined in the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor in 41 CFR Chapter 60, which is paid for in whole or in part with funds obtained from the Federal Government or borrowed on the credit of the Federal Government pursuant to a grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee or understanding pursuant to any federal program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, the required contract provisions for Federal-Aid Contracts (FHWA 1273), located in Chapter 44 of the Local Agency Guidelines. The Agency further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in federally assisted construction work: Provided, that if the applicant so participating is a State or Local Government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality, or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract. The Agency also agrees: (1) To assist and cooperate actively with the State in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. (2) To furnish the State such information as it may require for the supervision of such compliance and that it will otherwise assist the State in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance. (3) To refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, government contracts and federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order. (4) To carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the State, Federal Highway Administration, or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, subpart D of the Executive Order. In addition, the Agency agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the State may take any or all of the following actions: (a) Cancel, terminate, or suspend this agreement in whole or in part; (b) Refrain from extending any further assistance to the Agency under the program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the Agency; and (c) Refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings. DOT Form 140-039 Page 5 Revised 01/2022 XIII. Liquidated Damages The Agency hereby agrees that the liquidated damages provisions of 23 CFR Part 635, Subpart 127, as supplemented, relative to the amount of Federal participation in the project cost, shall be applicable in the event the contractor fails to complete the contract within the contract time. Failure to include liquidated damages provision will not relieve the Agency from reduction of federal participation in accordance with this paragraph. XIV. Termination for Public Convenience The Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation may terminate the contract in whole, or from time to time in part, whenever: (1)The requisite federal funding becomes unavailable through failure of appropriation or otherwise. (2) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work as a direct result of an Executive Order of the President with respect to the prosecution of war or in the interest of national defense, or an Executive Order of the President or Governor of the State with respect to the preservation of energy resources. (3) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work by reason of a preliminary, special, or permanent restraining order of a court of competent jurisdiction where the issuance of such order is primarily caused by the acts or omissions of persons or agencies other than the contractor. (4) The Secretary is notified by the Federal Highway Administration that the project is inactive. (5) The Secretary determines that such termination is in the best interests of the State. XV. Venue for Claims and/or Causes of Action For the convenience of the parties to this contract, it is agreed that any claims and/or causes of action which the Local Agency has against the State of Washington, growing out of this contract or the project with which it is concerned, shall be brought only in the Superior Court for Thurston County. XVI.Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying The approving authority certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: (1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit the Standard Form - LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and cooperative agreements) which exceed $100,000, and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification as a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. XVII. Assurances Local agencies receiving Federal funding from the USDOT or its operating administrations (i.e., Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Aviation Administration) are required to submit a written policy statement, signed by the Agency Executive and addressed to the State, documenting that all programs, activities, and services will be conducted in compliance with Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Additional Provisions Instructions 1.Agency Name and Billing Address – Enter the Agency of primary interest which will become a party to the agreement. 2.Project Number – Leave blank. This number will be assigned by WSDOT. 3.Agreement Number – Leave blank. This number will be assigned by WSDOT. 4. a.Project Description – Enter the project name, total length of the project (in miles), and a brief description of the termini. Data entered here must be consistent with the name, length, and termini noted in the STIP and Project Prospectus Example: (Name) “Regal Road”, (Length) “1.2 miles”, (Termini) “Smith Road to Main Street” b.Description of Work – Enter a concise statement of the major items of work to be performed. Statement must be consistent with the description of work noted in the STIP and Project Prospectus. Example: “Overlay Regal Road; install curb, gutter, and sidewalk; illumination; and traffic signal at the intersection of Regal Road and Dakota Avenue.” c.Project Agreement End Date – Enter your Project Agreement End Date. This date is based on your projects Period of Performance (2 CFR 200.309). For Planning Only projects – WSDOT recommends agencies estimate the end of the project’s period of performance and add three years to determine the “Project Agreement End Date”. For PE and RW – WSDOT recommends agencies estimate when the phase will be completed and add three years to determine the “Project Agreement End Date”. For Construction – WSDOT recommends agencies estimate when construction will be completed and add three years to determine the “Project Agreement End Date”. d.Proposed Advertisement Date – At construction authorization only, enter the proposed project advertisement date. e.Claiming Indirect Cost Rate – Check the Yes box if the agency will be claiming indirect costs on the project. For those projects claiming indirect costs, supporting documentation that clearly shows the indirect cost rate being utilized must be provided with the local agency agreement. Indirect cost rate approval by your cognizant agency or through your agency’s self-certification and supporting documentation is required to be available for review by FHWA, WSDOT and /or State Auditor. Check the No box if the agency will not be claiming indirect costs on the project. See section 23.5 for additional guidance. 5.Type of Work and Funding (Round all dollar amounts to the nearest whole dollar) a.PE – Lines a through d show Preliminary Engineering costs for the project by type of work (e.g., consultant, agency, state services, etc.). *Federal aid participation ratio for PE – enter ratio for PE lines with amounts in column 3. Line a – Enter the estimated amount of agency work in columns 1 through 3. Line b & c – Identify user, consultant, etc., and enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3. Line d – State Services. Every project must have funding for state services. Enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3. Line e – Total of lines a + b + c + d. b.Right of Way – If a Right of Way phase is authorized on the project, the appropriate costs are shown in lines f through i. *Federal aid participation ratio for RW – enter ratio for RW lines with amounts in column 3. Line f – Enter the estimated amount of agency work in columns 1 through 3. Line g & h – Identify user, consultant, etc., and enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3. Line i – State Services. Every project must have funding for state services. Enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3. Line j – Total of lines f + g + h + i. c.Construction – Lines k through p show construction costs for the project by type of work (e.g., contract, consultant, agency, state services, etc.). *Federal aid participation ratio for CN – enter ratio for CN lines with amounts in column 3. Line k – Enter the estimated cost of the contract. Lines l, m, & n – Enter other estimated costs such as utility and construction contracts or non‑federally matched contract costs. Line o – Enter estimated costs of all construction related agency work. Line p – State Services. Every project must have funding for state services. Enter the estimated amounts in columns 1 through 3. Line q – Total Construction Cost Estimate. Total of lines k + l + m + n + o + p. d.Total Project Cost Estimate Line r – Total Cost Estimate of the Project. Total of lines e + j + q. *Please remember, if the federal aid participation rate entered is not the maximum rate allowed by FHWA, then the participation rate entered becomes the maximum rate allowed. 6.Signatures – An authorized official of the local agency signs the agreement, and writes in their title. Note: Do NOT enter a date on the Date Executed line. 7.Method of Construction Financing – Choose the method of financing for the construction portion of the project. a.Method “A” is used when the state administers the contract for the agency. b.Method “B” is also used when the state administers the contract for the agency. c.Method “C” is used with projects administered by the local agency. The agency will submit billings monthly through the state to FHWA for all eligible costs. The billings must document the payment requests from the contractor. If state-force work, such as audit and construction engineering, is to receive federal participation, it will be billed to the agency and FHWA simultaneously at the indicated ratio. To show continuous progress agencies should bill monthly until agreement is closed. 8.Resolutions/Ordinances – When someone other than the County Executive/Chairman, County Commissioners/Mayor is authorized to sign the agreement, the agency must submit to WSDOT with the agreement a copy of the Resolution/Ordinance designating that individual. 9.Parties to the Agreement – Submit one originally signed agreement form to the Region Local Programs Engineer. It is the responsibility of the local agency to submit an additional, originally signed agreement form if they need an executed agreement for their files. The agreement is first executed by the agency official(s) authorized to enter into the agreement. It is then transmitted to the state for execution by Local Programs. The agreement is dated at the time of final execution by Local Programs. AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5464 establishing the City of Bremerton’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5477 Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: Finance Presenter: Karen Wikle Phone: (360) 473-5296 SUMMARY: This is a year-end housekeeping action. The Bremerton City Council adopted the 2023 Annual City Budget by Ordinance 5464 on November 16, 2022, and later amended the budget by Ordinance 5477 on June 21, 2023. In preparation for closing fiscal year 2023, it is necessary to do a final amendment to the budget to incorporate Council actions and other unforeseen items that have arisen after the last amendment. This amendment is necessary to provide adequate expenditure authority for various City funds and departments. ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance No.____ amending the 2023 Fiscal Year Budget • Exhibit A – 2023 All Funds Revenue & Expenditures • Detailed supporting schedules by fund FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Overall 2023 budget will be $252,185,541 (inclusive of fund balances). STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance No.____ of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Ordinance No. 5464 establishing the City of Bremerton’s Fiscal Year 2023 budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5477. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A2 1 2023 Final Budget Amendment ORDINANCE NO. _____ ____ AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, amending Ordinance No. 5464 establishing the City of Bremerton’s Fiscal Year 2023 budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5477. WHEREAS, the City Council passed the Fiscal Year 2023 City Budget Ordinance No. 5464 on November 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently amended the Fiscal Year 2023 City Budget by Ordinance No. 5477 on June 21, 2023 to provide for certain programs and actions taken up to that point requiring amendment to the 2023 budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously amended the budget by various motions and resolutions subsequent to June 21, 2023 which require a formal amendment by ordinance; and WHEREAS, several City Departments and Funds are experiencing or anticipate additional expenses due to factors such as costs related to provision of contracted services, changed allocations of staff time; and WHEREAS, several City Departments and Funds require adjustment to revenues to reflect activity in 2023 or timing changes from that which was anticipated in the 2023 budget; and WHEREAS, certain reclassifications of revenues and expenditures are required to properly reflect budget categories in a manner consistent with actuals in accordance with BMC 3.0.010; and WHEREAS, each of these actions has an impact on the City of Bremerton’s FY 2023 Annual Budget resulting in the need to amend this Budget document; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 5464 establishing the City of Bremerton’s 2023 Budget as amended by Ordinance No. 5477 is hereby amended as follows: 1) regular revenues and unencumbered fund balances of $252,185,541, the total for each fund as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and 2) in accordance with BMC 3.02.010, expenditures and ending fund balances of $252,185,541 as set forth in Exhibit A SECTION 2. The totals for the funds noted in Exhibit A are hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 2023. 2 2023 Final Budget Amendment SECTION 3. 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 4. 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 ____________________, 2023 _________________________________ JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President Approved this ________ day of ________________________, 2023 ________________________________ GREG WHEELER, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ ________________________________ ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk KYLIE FINNELL, City Attorney PUBLISHED the________ day of ______________________, 2023 EFFECTIVE the_________day of ______________________, 2023 ORDINANCE NO. ______ BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2023 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET General Fund General Government: City Council 00 0159,766 00159,766 Executive 00 0193,119 00193,119 Financial Services 00 0819,979 00819,979 Legal 00 0691,418 00691,418 Human Resources 0037,035 316,121 00353,156 Community Development 3,045,000 1,335,750 75,000 794,050 20,000 0 5,269,800 Municipal Court 00375,848 174,300 268,000 5,275 823,423 City Auditor 00 052,071 0052,071 Law Enforcement 0 6,000 856,108 158,600 1,000 177,460 1,199,168 Fire/Emergency Medical 2,160,000 1,200 691,125 670,200 0 24,130 3,546,655 Police & Fire Pension 0091,356 00 091,356 General Facilities 00399,640 179,054 0 1,062,360 1,641,054 Parks 0018,000 167,000 0 100,870 285,870 Engineering 0 114,000 0 2,795,201 002,909,201 Non-Departmental 31,390,424 24,000 2,045,180 144,202 740,200 102,000 34,446,006 Beginning Fund Balance 16,702,811 16,702,811 Total General Fund 16,702,811 36,595,424 1,480,950 4,589,292 7,315,081 1,029,200 1,472,095 69,184,853 Special Revenue Funds: Street 309,114 800,000 0 825,000 85,000 0 1,866,722 3,885,836 Contingency Reserve 1,791,803 00000306,000 2,097,803 Lodging Tax 666,487 600,000 00001,500 1,267,987 Parking System 520,150 0000400,500 1,496,178 2,416,828 Comm. Dev. Block Grant 152,635 00620,000 10,000 0 95,500 878,135 Abatement Revolving Fund 580,468 000050,000 100,500 730,968 Police Special Projects 742,904 000002,500 745,404 Public Access Television 633,686 0 260,000 0 135,764 0 37,000 1,066,450 Gift & Donations Fund 252,016 000003,370 255,386 Trial Improvement 114,245 00171,275 00600 286,120 One Percent for Arts 8,993 00000500 9,493 Conference Center Oper 157,332 00 01,079,557 0 450,700 1,687,589 Total Spec. Rev. Funds 5,929,832 1,400,000 260,000 1,616,275 1,310,321 450,500 4,361,070 15,327,998 Debt Service Fund: 2010 UTGO 50,188 900,000 0000100 950,288 Government Center LTGO 85,792 00000334,500 420,292 2015 Public Safety Bond 182,603 550,000 0000500 733,103 2019 Refunding LTGO 122,283 330,000 0 3,000 00146,000 601,283 Total Debt Service Fund 440,865 1,780,000 0 3,000 0 0 481,100 2,704,965 Capital Improvement Funds: General Govt Capital Improv. 7,960,823 3,000,000 000025,000 10,985,823 Park Facilities Construction 343,031 00385,379 00913,182 1,641,592 Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 0 000000 0 Transportation Projects Fund 3,112,425 1,728,700 155,000 16,368,161 004,799,179 26,163,465 Fire Public Safety Capital 153,995 000000153,995 Affordable Housing Capital Fund 75,791 00000100,100 175,891 Total Capital Improv. Funds 11,646,065 4,728,700 155,000 16,753,540 0 0 5,837,461 39,120,766 Total General Gov't Funds 34,719,573 44,504,124 1,895,950 22,962,107 8,625,402 1,479,700 12,151,726 126,338,582 2023 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS BEG LIC. INTER- CHARGES FINES 2023 FUND AND GOV'T FOR AND OTHER TOTAL FUND BAL. TAXES PERMITS REVENUE SERVICE FORFEITS REVENUE BUDGET 2023 REVENUE - ALL FUNDS Enterprise Funds: Water Utility 4,824,825 00 015,592,500 20,000 520,411 20,957,736 Water Capital 13,606,356 000004,796,057 18,402,413 Wastewater Utility 4,708,460 00 017,893,000 15,000 17,800 22,634,260 Wastewater Capital 7,972,379 000007,096,098 15,068,477 Stormwater Utility 1,198,254 00175,000 5,636,000 7,000 80,500 7,096,754 Stormwater Capital 4,851,680 005,127,396 001,592,217 11,571,293 Utility Debt Reserve 1,712,238 000006,100 1,718,338 Gold Mountain Golf Complex 1,953,069 00 05,936,798 0 21,000 7,910,867 Total Enterprise Funds 40,827,262 0 0 5,302,396 45,058,298 42,000 14,130,183 105,360,139 Internal Service Funds: Risk Management 1,736,654 000002,614,465 4,351,119 Employment Security 307,717 0000034,000 341,717 Accumulated Leave Liability 948,903 00000655,000 1,603,903 ER&R Operations & Maint. (49,756)00 02,210,402 0 1,950 2,162,596 ER&R Equipment Reserve 6,342,021 000001,482,550 7,824,571 Information Services 1,301,141 00 02,901,773 004,202,914 Total Internal Service Funds 10,586,681 0 0 0 5,112,175 0 4,787,965 20,486,821 Total Business Type Funds 51,413,942 0 0 5,302,396 50,170,473 42,000 18,918,148 125,846,959 Total All Funds 86,133,515 44,504,124 1,895,950 28,264,503 58,795,875 1,521,700 31,069,874 252,185,541 Beginning Fund Balance $86,133,515 34% Taxes $44,504,124 18% Licenses & Permits $1,895,950 1% Intergovernmental $28,264,503 11% Charges for Service $58,795,875 23% Fines & Forfeits $1,521,700 1%Other Revenue $31,069,874 12% Revenue Sources - All Funds 1/0/1900 2023 SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET General Fund General Government: City Council 376,600 80,717 000 457,317 Executive 453,500 76,320 000 529,820 Financial Services 1,351,000 355,300 000 1,706,300 Legal Department 1,624,200 304,385 000 1,928,585 Human Resources 540,600 326,672 000 867,272 Community Development 2,179,600 997,944 0094,000 3,271,544 Municipal Court 1,153,100 844,993 000 1,998,093 City Auditor 135,000 7,856 000 142,856 Law Enforcement 12,343,000 2,878,596 0 50,000 0 15,271,596 Fire/Emergency Medical 12,189,000 1,570,573 0 24,130 0 13,783,703 Police & Fire Pension 1,307,500 437,000 000 1,744,500 General Facilities 532,800 1,053,346 0 1,059,952 0 2,646,098 General Parks 2,529,600 1,013,103 000 3,542,703 Engineering 3,680,940 432,802 000 4,113,742 Non-Departmental 0 5,020,991 002,173,722 7,194,713 Ending Fund Balance 9,986,013 9,986,013 Total General Fund 40,396,440 15,400,596 0 1,134,082 2,267,722 9,986,013 69,184,853 Special Revenue Funds: Street 1,508,030 2,248,693 000129,113 3,885,836 Contingency Reserve 000002,097,803 2,097,803 Lodging Tax 0 350,000 00250,000 667,987 1,267,987 Parking System 1,275 1,310,178 597,658 176,000 70,000 261,717 2,416,828 Comm. Dev. Block Grant 161,700 429,116 00132,000 155,319 878,135 Abatement Revolving Fund 0 215,100 000515,868 730,968 Police Special Projects 0 6,804 000738,600 745,404 Public Access Television 424,700 106,832 0 96,000 0 438,918 1,066,450 Gift & Donations Fund 0 2,500 00169,870 83,016 255,386 Trial Improvement 0 46,170 0 187,200 0 52,750 286,120 One Percent for Arts 0 9,000 000493 9,493 Conference Center Oper 0 1,615,861 28,092 35,000 0 8,636 1,687,589 Total Spec. Rev. Funds 2,095,705 6,340,254 625,750 494,200 621,870 5,150,219 15,327,998 Debt Service Fund: 2010 UTGO 00859,025 0091,263 950,288 Government Center LTGO 00332,763 0087,529 420,292 2015 Public Safety Bond 00500,600 00232,503 733,103 2019 Refunding LTGO 00536,266 0065,017 601,283 Total Debt Service Fund 0 0 2,228,654 0 0 476,312 2,704,965 Capital Improvement Funds: General Govt Capital Improv.00006,047,921 4,937,902 10,985,823 Park Facilities Construction 000552,927 0 1,088,665 1,641,592 Residential Street & Sidewalk Fund 0000000 Transportation Projects Fund 0 2,489,983 0 21,741,299 490,000 1,442,183 26,163,465 Fire Public Safety Capital 0 153,995 000(0) 153,995 Affordable Housing Capital Fund 0 100,000 00075,891 175,891 Total Capital Improv. Funds 0 2,743,978 0 22,294,226 6,537,921 7,544,641 39,120,766 Total General Gov't Funds 42,492,145 24,484,828 2,854,404 23,922,508 9,427,513 23,157,185 126,338,582 2023 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS 1/0/1900 2023 SUPPLIES & DEBT CAPITAL ENDING TOTAL FUND PERSONNEL SERVICES SERVICE OUTLAY TRANSFERS FUND BAL. BUDGET 2023 EXPENDITURES - ALL FUNDS Enterprise Funds: Water Utility 5,104,325 8,220,811 694,919 0 2,825,000 4,112,681 20,957,736 Water Capital 0 1,697,021 0 10,113,662 0 6,591,730 18,402,413 Wastewater Utility 3,909,477 10,285,729 2,003,911 0 2,875,000 3,560,143 22,634,260 Wastewater Capital 0 980,000 0 7,042,146 60,000 6,986,331 15,068,477 Stormwater Utility 1,949,275 3,281,080 707,662 001,158,737 7,096,754 Stormwater Capital 0 275,000 0 7,079,789 0 4,216,504 11,571,293 Utility Debt Reserve 000001,718,338 1,718,338 Gold Mountain Golf Complex 11,300 5,157,134 433,590 002,308,843 7,910,867 Total Enterprise Funds 10,974,377 29,896,775 3,840,082 24,235,597 5,760,000 30,653,308 105,360,139 Internal Service Funds: Risk Management 775,000 3,030,967 000545,152 4,351,119 Employment Security 60,000 0000281,717 341,717 Accumulated Leave Liability 500,000 00001,103,903 1,603,903 ER&R Operations & Maint 621,800 1,586,127 0 18,000 0 (63,331) 2,162,596 ER&R Equipment Reserves 0 7,748 0 6,075,949 0 1,740,874 7,824,571 Information Services 1,243,200 1,594,296 00145,860 1,219,558 4,202,914 Total Internal Service Funds 3,200,000 6,219,138 0 6,093,949 145,860 4,827,874 20,486,821 Total Business Type Funds 14,174,377 36,115,913 3,840,082 30,329,546 5,905,860 35,481,182 125,846,959 Total All Funds 56,666,522 60,600,741 6,694,486 54,252,054 15,333,373 58,638,366 252,185,541 Personnel $56,666,522 22%Supplies & Services $60,600,741 24% Debt Service $6,694,486 3% Capital Outlay $54,252,054 22% Transfers $15,333,373 6% Ending Fund Balance $58,638,366 23% Expenditures - All Funds CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 SUMMARY NET ADJUSTMENTS ALL FUNDS For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Proposed 2023 Amended Budget Year-End as Adopted by 2023 Fund No. Ord No. 5464 Net Adjustments Budget 001 General Fund City Council 457,317$ -$ 457,317$ Executive 529,820 - 529,820 Financial Services 1,706,300 - 1,706,300 Legal 1,928,585 - 1,928,585 Human Resources 867,272 - 867,272 Community Development 3,271,544 - 3,271,544 Municipal Court 1,998,093 - 1,998,093 City Auditor 142,856 - 142,856 Law Enforcement 15,271,596 - 15,271,596 Fire/Emergency Services 13,759,573 24,130 13,783,703 Police/Fire Pension 1,744,500 - 1,744,500 General Facilities 2,437,646 208,452 2,646,098 Parks & Recreation 3,542,703 - 3,542,703 Engineering 4,113,742 - 4,113,742 Non-Department 7,194,713 - 7,194,713 Ending Fund Balance 9,972,785 13,228 9,986,013 Total General Fund 68,939,043$ 245,810$ 69,184,853$ 102 Street 3,820,859 64,977 3,885,836 103 Contingency Reserve 2,097,803 - 2,097,803 104 Lodging Tax 1,267,987 - 1,267,987 105 Parking System 2,442,501 (25,673) 2,416,828 106 Community Dev. Block Grant 878,135 - 878,135 108 Abatement Revolving 730,968 - 730,968 110 Police Special Projects 745,404 - 745,404 113 Public Access Television 1,066,892 (442) 1,066,450 114 Gift & Donation Fund 255,386 - 255,386 116 Trial Improvement 286,120 - 286,120 117 One Percent For Arts 9,493 - 9,493 120 Conference Center Operating 1,874,511 (186,922) 1,687,589 203 2010 LTGO - - - 204 2010 UTGO/LTGO (B)951,667 (1,379) 950,288 205 Government Center LTGO 420,292 - 420,292 206 2015 Public Safety Bond 733,952 (849) 733,103 207 2019 Refunding LTGO 601,283 - 601,283 308 General Gov't Capital Improvement 10,985,823 - 10,985,823 310 Park Facilities Construction 1,613,504 28,089 1,641,593 314 Residential Street Capital - - - 315 Transportation Capital Projects 26,039,628 123,837 26,163,465 316 Fire Public Safety 153,995 - 153,995 318 Affordable Housing 175,891 - 175,891 401 Water Utility 21,080,053 (122,317) 20,957,736 404 Water Capital 18,417,775 (15,362) 18,402,413 407 Golf Mountain Golf 8,179,881 (269,014) 7,910,867 451 Wastewater Utility 22,511,943 122,317 22,634,260 454 Wastewater Capital 14,877,974 190,503 15,068,477 481 Stormwater Utility 7,096,754 - 7,096,754 484 Stormwater Capital 11,761,829 (190,536) 11,571,293 499 Utility Debt Reserve 1,718,338 - 1,718,338 503 Risk Management 4,451,119 (100,000) 4,351,119 506 Employment Security 341,717 - 341,717 507 Accumulated Leave Liability 1,603,903 - 1,603,903 509 ER&R - Operations & Maintenance 2,162,596 - 2,162,596 510 ER&R - Reserves 8,033,902 (209,331) 7,824,571 511 Information Services 4,202,914 - 4,202,914 Total All funds 252,531,834$ (346,293)$ 252,185,541$ CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ 11,296,600 $ 11,296,600 $ - Retail Sales 11,990,000 11,990,000 - Other 13,308,824 13,308,824 - Licenses and Permits 1,480,950 1,480,950 - Intergovernmental 4,589,292 4,589,292 - Charges for Services 7,315,081 7,315,081 - Fines and Forfeitures 1,029,200 1,029,200 - Miscellaneous 671,375 671,375 - Transfers In & Other Financing 550,730 800,720 249,990 Total Revenues 52,232,052 52,482,042 249,990 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 40,396,440 40,396,440 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 15,536,096 15,424,726 (111,370) Capital Expenditures 766,000 1,109,952 343,952 Debt Service --- Transfers Out 2,267,722 2,267,722 - Total Expenditures 58,966,258 59,198,840 232,582 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (6,734,206) (6,716,798) 17,408 Fund Balances-beginning 16,706,991 16,702,811 (4,180) Fund Balances-ending $ 9,972,785 $ 9,986,013 $ 13,228 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT City Council $ 457,317 457,317 $- Executive 529,820 529,820 - Financial Services 1,706,300 1,706,300 - Legal Department 1,928,585 1,928,585 - Human Resources 867,272 867,272 - Community Development 3,271,544 3,271,544 - Municipal Court 1,998,093 1,998,093 - City Auditor 142,856 142,856 - Police Department 15,271,596 15,271,596 - Fire Department 13,759,573 13,783,703 24,130 Police & Fire Pension 1,744,500 1,744,500 - General Facilities 2,437,646 2,646,098 208,452 Parks & Recreation 3,542,703 3,542,703 - Engineering 4,113,742 4,113,742 - Non-Departmental 7,194,713 7,194,713 - Total Expenditures $ 58,966,258 $ 59,198,840 $ 232,582 Per the City's Financial Goals and Policies, the target ending fund balance is 8.5% of annual expenditures excluding capital. The target fund balance for the 2023 budget, as amended, is $4,937,555. The actual ending fund balance after the proposed amendments is $9,986,013 or 17% of annual expenditures, which is higher than the target amount by $302,595. FUND 001 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Addition Transfers In in Fire from Fire Capital Fund 24,130 Expenditure - Increase in Supplies, Services in Fire for Boat Pump Replacement (24,130) Revenue - Addition Transfers In in Facilities from REET 225,860 Expenditure - Increase in Capital in Facilities for Library HVAC (293,952) Expenditure - Decrease Supplies, Services in Facilities for Library HVAC 85,500 Expenditure - Increase in Capital in Police for 3D Laser Scanner (50,000) Expenditure - Decrease Supplies, Services in Police for 3D Laser Scanner 50,000 Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ 17,408 Items Previously Approved by Council or Finance Committee New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 001 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STREET FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other 800,000 800,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental (fuel tax) 825,000 825,000 - Charges for Services 85,000 85,000 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 17,000 17,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 1,779,722 1,849,722 70,000 Total Revenues 3,506,722 3,576,722 70,000 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 1,563,030 1,563,030 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 2,123,693 2,193,693 70,000 Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 3,686,723 3,756,723 70,000 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (180,001) (180,001) - Fund Balances-beginning 314,137 309,114 (5,023) Fund Balances-ending $ 134,136 $ 129,113 $ (5,023) Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Addition Transfers In from REET 70,000 Expenditure - Increase in Supplies, Services for LED Streetlights project (70,000) - Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 102 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 5,000 5,000 - Transfers-in & Other Revenue 301,000 301,000 - Total Revenues 306,000 306,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures - - - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 306,000 306,000 - Fund Balances-beginning 1,791,803 1,791,803 - Fund Balances-ending $ 2,097,803 $ 2,097,803 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 103 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE LODGING TAX FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other (hotel/motel tax) 600,000 600,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,500 1,500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 601,500 601,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 350,000 350,000 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 250,000 250,000 - Total Expenditures 600,000 600,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 1,500 1,500 - Fund Balances-beginning 666,487 666,487 - Fund Balances-ending $ 667,987 $ 667,987 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 104 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PARKING SYSTEM FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures 400,500 400,500 - Miscellaneous 1,492,178 1,492,178 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 4,000 4,000 - Total Revenues 1,896,678 1,896,678 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 1,275 1,275 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,310,178 1,310,178 - Capital Expenditures 176,000 176,000 - Debt Service 597,658 597,658 - Transfers Out 70,000 70,000 - Total Expenditures 2,155,111 2,155,111 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (258,433) (258,433) - Fund Balances-beginning 545,823 520,150 (25,673) Fund Balances-ending $ 287,390 $ 261,717 $ (25,673) Budget Adjustments: $- Net adjustment to ending fund balance required New Items Not Previously Approved by Council New Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 105 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 620,000 620,000 - Charges for Services 10,000 10,000 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,500 1,500 - Transfers in 94,000 94,000 - Total Revenues 725,500 725,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 161,700 161,700 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 429,116 429,116 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 132,000 132,000 - Total Expenditures 722,816 722,816 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 2,684 2,684 - Fund Balances-beginning 152,635 152,635 - Fund Balances-ending $ 155,319 $ 155,319 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 106 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ABATEMENT REVOLVING FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures 50,000 50,000 - Miscellaneous 500 500 - Transfers in 100,000 100,000 - Total Revenues 150,500 150,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 215,100 215,100 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 215,100 215,100 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (64,600) (64,600) - Fund Balances-beginning 580,468 580,468 - Fund Balances-ending $ 515,868 $ 515,868 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 108 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE POLICE SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 2,500 2,500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 2,500 2,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 6,804 6,804 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - Total Expenditures 6,804 6,804 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (4,304) (4,304) - Fund Balances-beginning 742,904 742,904 - Fund Balances-ending $ 738,600 $ 738,600 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 110 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION OPERATIONS FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other (city PEG fees) - - - Licenses and Permits 260,000 260,000 - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 135,764 135,764 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 37,000 37,000 - Transfers in & Other - - - Total Revenues 432,764 432,764 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 424,700 424,700 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 106,832 106,832 - Capital Expenditures 96,000 96,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 627,532 627,532 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (194,768) (194,768) - Fund Balances-beginning 634,128 633,686 (442) Fund Balances-ending $ 439,360 $ 438,918 $ (442) Budget Adjustments: . Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 113 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GIFT AND DONATION FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 3,370 3,370 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 3,370 3,370 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 2,500 2,500 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 169,870 169,870 - Total Expenditures 172,370 172,370 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (169,000) (169,000) - Fund Balances-beginning 252,016 252,016 - Fund Balances-ending $ 83,016 $ 83,016 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 114 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE TRIAL IMPROVEMENT FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 171,275 171,275 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 600 600 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 171,875 171,875 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 200,000 46,170 (153,830) Capital Expenditures - 187,200 187,200 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 200,000 233,370 33,370 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (28,125) (61,495) (33,370) Fund Balances-beginning 114,245 114,245 - Fund Balances-ending $ 86,120 $ 52,750 $ (33,370) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Increase in Capital in for Audio-Visual Equipment (187,200) Expenditure - Decrease Supplies, Services for Audio-Visual Equipment 153,830 Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ (33,370) Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 116 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ONE PERCENT FOR ARTS FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 500 500 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 500 500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 9,000 9,000 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 9,000 9,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (8,500) (8,500) - Fund Balances-beginning 8,993 8,993 - Fund Balances-ending $ 493 $ 493 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 117 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE CONFERENCE CENTER OPERATIONS For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 1,079,557 1,079,557 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 700 700 - Transfers In & Other Revenue 450,000 450,000 - Total Revenues 1,530,257 1,530,257 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,615,861 1,615,861 - Capital Expenditures 35,000 35,000 - Debt Service 28,092 28,092 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 1,678,953 1,678,953 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (148,696) (148,696) - Fund Balances-beginning 344,254 157,332 (186,922) Fund Balances-ending $ 195,558 $ 8,636 $ (186,922) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 120 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2010 UTGO/LTGO (B) For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 100 100 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 900,100 900,100 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 859,025 859,025 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 859,025 859,025 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 41,075 41,075 - Fund Balances-beginning 51,567 50,188 (1,379) Fund Balances-ending $ 92,642 $ 91,263 $ (1,379) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 204 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOVERNMENT CENTER LTGO For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,500 1,500 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 333,000 333,000 - Total Revenues 334,500 334,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 332,763 332,763 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 332,763 332,763 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 1,737 1,737 - Fund Balances-beginning 85,792 85,792 - Fund Balances-ending $ 87,529 $ 87,529 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 205 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2015 PUBLIC SAFETY BOND FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 500 500 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 550,500 550,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 500,600 500,600 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 500,600 500,600 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 49,900 49,900 - Fund Balances-beginning 183,452 182,603 (849) Fund Balances-ending $ 233,352 $ 232,503 $ (849) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 206 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2019 REFUNDING LTGO For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales 330,000 330,000 - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 3,000 3,000 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,000 1,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 145,000 145,000 - Total Revenues 479,000 479,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 536,266 536,266 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 536,266 536,266 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (57,266) (57,266) - Fund Balances-beginning 122,283 122,283 - Fund Balances-ending $ 65,017 $ 65,017 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $- New Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 207 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other (Real Estate Excise Taxes)3,000,000 3,000,000 - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 25,000 25,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 3,025,000 3,025,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 5,724,179 6,047,921 323,742 Total Expenditures 5,724,179 6,047,921 323,742 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (2,699,179) (3,022,921) (323,742) Fund Balances-beginning 7,960,823 7,960,823 - Fund Balances-ending $ 5,261,644 $ 4,937,902 $ (323,742) Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Addition in Transfers Out to General Fund-Facilities (225,860) Expenditure - Addition in Transfers Out to Streets Fund (70,000) Expenditure - Addition in Transfers Out to Parks Capital Improvement (27,882) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ (323,742) Items Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 308 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE PARK FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 385,379 385,379 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 23,300 23,300 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 862,000 889,882 27,882 Total Revenues 1,270,679 1,298,561 27,882 EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures 525,045 552,927 27,882 Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 525,045 552,927 27,882 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances 745,634 745,634 - Fund Balances-beginning 342,825 343,031 206 Fund Balances-ending $ 1,088,459 $ 1,088,666 $ 206 Budget Adjustments: Revenue - Addition Transfers In from REET 27,882 Expenditure - Increase Capital for Kitsap Lake Reno Project (27,882) Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 310 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other 1,728,700 1,728,700 - Licenses and Permits 155,000 155,000 - Intergovernmental 16,368,161 16,368,161 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 85,000 85,000 - Transfers in 4,714,179 4,714,179 - Total Revenues 23,051,040 23,051,040 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 2,489,983 2,489,983 - Capital Expenditures 21,741,299 21,741,299 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 490,000 490,000 - Total Expenditures 24,721,282 24,721,282 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (1,670,242) (1,670,242) - Fund Balances-beginning 2,988,588 3,112,425 123,837 Fund Balances-ending $ 1,318,346 $ 1,442,183 $ 123,837 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 315 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues - - - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 153,995 129,865 (24,130) Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - 24,130 24,130 Total Expenditures 153,995 153,995 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in fund balances (153,995) (153,995) - Fund Balances-beginning 153,995 153,995 - Fund Balances-ending $ 0 $ 0 $ - Budget Adjustments: Expenditure - Addition in Transfers Out to General Fund-Fire (24,130) Expenditure - Reduction in Supplies, Services 24,130 Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 316 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CAPITAL FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 100 100 - Transfers in 100,000 100,000 - Total Revenues 100,100 100,100 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 100,000 100,000 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 100,000 100,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 100 100 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 75,791 75,791 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 75,891 $ 75,891 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 318 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 15,592,500 15,592,500 - Fines and Forfeitures 20,000 20,000 - Miscellaneous 519,411 519,411 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 1,000 1,000 - Total Revenues 16,132,911 16,132,911 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 5,104,325 5,104,325 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 8,220,811 8,220,811 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 694,919 694,919 - Transfers Out 2,825,000 2,825,000 - Total Expenditures 16,845,055 16,845,055 - CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL BALANCE Net change in working capital (712,144) (712,144) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 4,947,142 4,824,825 (122,317) Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 4,234,998 $ 4,112,681 $ (122,317) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 401 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 75,600 75,600 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 4,720,457 4,720,457 - Total Revenues 4,796,057 4,796,057 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,697,021 1,697,021 - Capital Expenditures 10,113,662 10,113,662 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 11,810,683 11,810,683 - CHANGES IN WORKING CAPITAL BALANCE Net change in working capital (7,014,626) (7,014,626) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 13,621,718 13,606,356 (15,362) Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 6,607,092 $ 6,591,730 $ (15,362) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment required to the ending fund balance $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 404 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WASTEWATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 17,893,000 17,893,000 - Fines and Forfeitures 15,000 15,000 - Miscellaneous 17,800 17,800 - Transfers in & Other Revenue - - - Total Revenues 17,925,800 17,925,800 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 3,909,477 3,909,477 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 10,285,729 10,285,729 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 2,003,911 2,003,911 - Transfers Out 2,875,000 2,875,000 - Total Expenditures 19,074,117 19,074,117 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (1,148,317) (1,148,317) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 4,586,143 4,708,460 122,317 Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 3,437,826 $ 3,560,143 $ 122,317 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 451 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WASTEWATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 15,600 15,600 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 7,080,498 7,080,498 - Total Revenues 7,096,098 7,096,098 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 980,000 980,000 - Capital Expenditures 7,042,146 7,042,146 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 60,000 60,000 - Total Expenditures 8,082,146 8,082,146 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (986,048) (986,048) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 7,781,876 7,972,379 190,503 Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 6,795,828 $ 6,986,331 $ 190,503 Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 454 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STORMWATER UTILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 175,000 175,000 - Charges for Services 5,636,000 5,636,000 - Fines and Forfeitures 7,000 7,000 - Miscellaneous 5,500 5,500 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 75,000 75,000 - Total Revenues 5,898,500 5,898,500 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 1,949,275 1,949,275 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 3,281,080 3,281,080 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 707,662 707,662 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 5,938,017 5,938,017 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (39,517) (39,517) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 1,198,254 1,198,254 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 1,158,737 $ 1,158,737 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - New Items Not Previously Approved by Council Items Previously Approved by Council FUND 481 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE STORMWATER CAPITAL For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental 5,127,396 5,127,396 - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 50,000 50,000 - Transfers in & Other Revenue 1,542,217 1,542,217 - Total Revenues 6,719,613 6,719,613 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 275,000 275,000 - Capital Expenditures 7,079,789 7,079,789 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 7,354,789 7,354,789 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (635,176) (635,176) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 5,042,216 4,851,680 (190,536) Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 4,407,040 $ 4,216,504 $ (190,536) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 484 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE UTILITY DEBT RESERVE For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 6,100 6,100 - Transfers in and other - - - Total Revenues 6,100 6,100 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures - - - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 6,100 6,100 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 1,712,238 1,712,238 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 1,718,338 $ 1,718,338 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 499 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOLD MOUNTAIN GOLF COMPLEX For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 5,936,798 5,936,798 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 21,000 21,000 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 5,957,798 5,957,798 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 11,300 11,300 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 5,157,134 5,157,134 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service 433,590 433,590 - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 5,602,024 5,602,024 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 355,774 355,774 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 2,222,083 1,953,069 (269,014) Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 2,577,857 $ 2,308,843 $ (269,014) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 407 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE RISK MANAGEMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 2,614,465 2,614,465 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 2,614,465 2,614,465 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 775,000 775,000 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 3,030,967 3,030,967 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 3,805,967 3,805,967 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (1,191,502) (1,191,502) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 1,836,654 1,736,654 (100,000) Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 645,152 $ 545,152 $ (100,000) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 503 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 34,000 34,000 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 34,000 34,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 60,000 60,000 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 60,000 60,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (26,000) (26,000) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 307,717 307,717 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 281,717 $ 281,717 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 506 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ACCUMULATED LEAVE LIABILITY For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 655,000 655,000 - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 655,000 655,000 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 500,000 500,000 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes - - - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 500,000 500,000 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital 155,000 155,000 - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 948,903 948,903 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 1,103,903 $ 1,103,903 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 507 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 2,210,402 2,210,402 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 1,950 1,950 - Transfers in & Other Financing - - - Total Revenues 2,212,352 2,212,352 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 621,800 621,800 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,586,127 1,586,127 - Capital Expenditures 18,000 18,000 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out - - - Total Expenditures 2,225,927 2,225,927 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (13,575) (13,575) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital (49,756) (49,756) - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ (63,331) $ (63,331) $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 509 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE EQUIPMENT RENTAL RESERVE - RESERVES For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $ - $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services - - - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous 30,000 30,000 - Transfers in & Other 1,452,550 1,452,550 - Total Revenues 1,482,550 1,482,550 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses - - - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 7,748 7,748 - Capital Expenditures 6,075,949 6,075,949 - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out & Other - - - Total Expenditures 6,083,697 6,083,697 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (4,601,147) (4,601,147) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 6,551,352 6,342,021 (209,331) Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 1,950,205 $ 1,740,874 (209,331) Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 510 CITY OF BREMERTON 2023 ANTICIPATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE INFORMATION SERVICES For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Amended Proposed Adj Required Mid-Year Year-End From The Budget Budget Amended Budget 2023 2023 2023 REVENUES Taxes Property $- $ - $ - Sales - - - Other - - - Licenses and Permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for Services 2,901,773 2,901,773 - Fines and Forfeitures - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers in - - - Total Revenues 2,901,773 2,901,773 - EXPENDITURES Personnel Expenses 1,243,200 1,243,200 - Supplies, Services, and Taxes 1,594,296 1,594,296 - Capital Expenditures - - - Debt Service - - - Transfers Out 145,860 145,860 - Total Expenditures 2,983,356 2,983,356 - CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE Net change in working capital (81,583) (81,583) - Fund Balances-beginning working capital 1,301,141 1,301,141 - Fund Balances-ending working capital $ 1,219,558 $ 1,219,558 $ - Budget Adjustments: Net adjustment to ending fund balance required $ - Items Previously Approved by Council New Items Not Previously Approved by Council FUND 511 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Acceptance of the 2024-2025 Public Defense Improvement Grant from the Washington State Office of Public Defense for the Bremerton Municipal Court COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: Bremerton Municipal Court Presenter: Melinda Monroe Phone: (360) 473-5306 SUMMARY: The Bremerton Municipal Court applied to the WA State Office of Public Defense for the OPD Public Defense Improvement Grant and received an award in the amount of $34,000 for a 2-year cycle. The grant funds will be disbursed automatically in the respective January and may be use for to adjust compensation for contracted public defense counsel. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Award Letter 2) Grant Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Addition of $17,000 to the 2024 budget and $17,000 to the 2025 budget STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the Public Defense Grant Fund Award from the WA State Office of Public Defense; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/09/2021 A3 From:Geoffrey Hulsey To:Melinda Monroe Subject:City 10.101 Grant Notification Date:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:15:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Melinda Monroe, Congratulations! In response to your recent application, the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) is pleased to offer state grant funding to the City of Bremerton for public defense improvements in calendar years 2024 and 2025. We anticipate offering a total of $34,000.00 to your City, distributed in two equal sums: one-half for use in 2024, and one-half for use in 2025. The final amount will be confirmed via Grant Agreement in the upcoming weeks. Please let us know by October 13, 2023 whether you wish to accept theseavailable grant funds. We understand and appreciate that this award amount may be less than what your City applied for. This year, we received applications totaling nearly $4.3 million in requests, yet our available funds are only $2 million. OPD is happy to provide a list of Factors for Evaluating City Grant Applications which we used in reaching our final funding decisions. The funds you receive shall be used only for the following approved purposes: · Additional attorneys to reduce caseloads; · Increased compensation for public defense service providers; · Reimbursement of training costs for public defense service providers; · Interpreter services for attorney-client interviews and communications. All participants in this two-year grant program are expected to file four short progress reports to track use of grant funds. OPD will provide instructions and templates for these reports. In addition, OPD will conduct occasional site visits to learn more about your local public defense practices, provide technical assistance, and ensure that funds are being spent on approved uses. Once the appeal period has passed for cities that were not awarded funds (two weeks), OPD will email you an official award letter and Grant Agreement for your City’s review and signature. A check for the 2024 award portion ($17,000.00) will be sent via postal mail at the beginning of January. Please remember that grant funds may not be used for supplanting. Therefore, the City is responsible for continuing to pay at least the same amount for public defense services as it did prior to receiving grant funds. Thank you for your commitment to improving public defense services, and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We look forward to working you over the next two years. Sincerely, Geoffrey Hulsey (he/him) Managing Attorney, Public Defense Improvement Program Washington State Office of Public Defense PO Box 40957, Olympia, WA 98504-0957 Desk: (360) 586-3164 ext. 147 Cell: (360) 972-5999 Geoffrey.Hulsey@opd.wa.gov Grant Agreement GRT24020 Face Sheet Page 1 of 16 Grant Agreement No. GRT24020 FACE SHEET WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENSE 1. Grantee City of Bremerton 345 6th Street STE 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 2. Grantee Representative Melinda Monroe Contracts Administrator 345 6th Street STE 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 3. Office of Public Defense (OPD) 711 Capitol Way South, Suite 106 PO Box 40957 Olympia, WA 98504‐0957 4. OPD Representative Geoffrey D. Hulsey Managing Attorney Office of Public Defense 711 Capitol Way South, Suite 106 PO Box 40957 Olympia, WA 98504‐0957 5. Grant Amount $34,000.00 6. Grant Period January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2025 7. Grant Purpose The Chapter 10.101 RCW city grants are competitive grants for the purpose of improving the quality of public defense services in Washington municipalities. (See Chapter 10.101 RCW.) The Office of Public Defense (OPD) and Grantee, as defined above, acknowledge and accept the terms of this Grant Agreement and attachments and have executed this Grant Agreement on the date below to start January 1, 2024 and end December 31, 2025. The rights and obligations of both parties to this Grant are governed by this Grant Agreement and the following other documents incorporated by reference: Special Terms and Conditions of the City Grant Agreement, General Terms and Conditions of City Grant Agreement, and Exhibits A, B, C, and D. FOR THE GRANTEE ______________________________________ Name, Title ______________________________________ Date FOR OPD _______________________________________ Geoffrey D. Hulsey, Managing Attorney Public Defense Improvement Program, OPD _______________________________________ Date Grant Agreement GRT24020 Special Terms and Conditions Page 2 of 16 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CITY GRANT AGREEMENT 1. GRANT MANAGEMENT The Representative for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications regarding the performance of this Grant. a. The Representative for OPD and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. b. The Representative for the Grantee and their contact information are identified on the Face Sheet of this Grant. 2. GRANT AWARD AMOUNT The Grantee is awarded thirty‐four thousand dollars and 00/100 Dollars ($34,000.00) to be used for the purpose(s) described in the USE OF GRANT FUNDS below. One‐half of the award amount shall be disbursed to Grantee in January 2024 for intended use during calendar year 2024. The remaining one‐ half shall be disbursed to Grantee in January 2025 for intended use during calendar year 2025. The disbursement of any grant funds is subject to the availability of funding appropriated to OPD by the Washington State Legislature. 3. PROHIBITED USE OF GRANT FUNDS (as adopted in OPD Policy County/City Use of State Public Defense Funding) a. Grant funds cannot be used to supplant local funds that were being spent on public defense prior to the initial disbursement of state grant funds. b. Grant funds cannot be spent on purely city or court administrative functions or billing costs. c. Grant funds cannot be used for cost allocation. d. Grants funds cannot be used for indigency screening costs. e. Grant funds cannot be used for city or court technology systems or administrative equipment. f. Grant funds cannot be used for city attorney time, including advice on public defense contracting. 4. USE OF GRANT FUNDS a. Grantee agrees to use the grant funds for the following: i. Additional attorneys to reduce caseloads; ii. Increased compensation for public defense service providers; iii. Reimbursement of training costs for public defense service providers; iv. Interpreter services for attorney‐client interviews and communications. b. Grantee agrees to obtain OPD’s written permission before funds are used for any purpose other than those listed in Section 4a above. Permission issued by electronic mail shall be sufficient for purposes of identifying other uses of grant funds not listed in section a. c. Grantee understands that the first disbursement of funds will be in calendar year 2024, and the second disbursement of funds will be in calendar year 2025. Grantee agrees that all disbursed funds will be used by the end of calendar year 2025. If Grantee is unable to use the funds by the end of calendar year 2025, the Grantee agrees to notify OPD to determine what action needs to be taken. d. Grantee agrees to deposit the grant check within fourteen days of receipt. Grant Agreement GRT24020 Special Terms and Conditions Page 3 of 16 5. OVERSIGHT a. Grantee agrees to submit written reports to OPD. The first report shall be submitted to OPD no later than June 1, 2024 using the template found in Exhibit A. The second report shall be submitted to OPD no later than December 1, 2024 using the template found in Exhibit B. The third report shall be submitted to OPD no later than June 1, 2025 using the template found in Exhibit C. The final report shall be submitted to OPD no later than December 1, 2025 using the template found in Exhibit D. Reports must be submitted along with the Grantee City’s public defense attorneys’ contracts, certifications of compliance, and other required documentation. b. Over the duration of the grant term, OPD may conduct site visits for purposes of addressing improvements to public defense and ensuring the use of grant funds for their specified purposes. At OPD’s request, Grantee will assist in scheduling such site visits and inviting appropriate attendees such as, but not limited to: public defense attorneys, judicial officers, and city representatives. 6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In the event of an inconsistency in this Grant, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order:  Applicable federal and state of Washington statutes, regulations, and court rules  Special Terms and Conditions of the City Grant  General Terms and Conditions of the City Grant Grant Agreement GRT24020 General Terms and Conditions Page 4 of 16 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CITY GRANT AGREEMENT 1. ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Grant contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Grant shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. 2. AMENDMENTS This Grant may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendment shall not be binding unless it is in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 3. AMERCIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) OF 1990, PUBLIC LAW 101‐336, also referred to as the “ADA” 29 CFR Part 35. The Grantee must comply with the ADA, which provides comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. 4. ASSIGNMENT Neither this Grant, nor any claim arising under this Grant, shall be transferred or assigned by the Grantee without prior written consent of OPD. 5. ATTORNEY’S FEES Unless expressly permitted under another provision of the Grant, in the event of litigation or other action brought to enforce Grant terms, each party agrees to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. 6. CONFORMANCE If any provision of this Grant violates any statute or rule of law of the State of Washington, it is considered modified to conform to that statute or rule of law. 7. ETHICS/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST In performing under this Grant, the Grantee shall assure compliance with the Ethics in Public Service, Chapter 42.52 RCW and any other applicable court rule or state or federal law related to ethics or conflicts of interest. 8. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Grant shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County. 9. INDEMNIFICATION To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of Washington, OPD, all other agencies of the State and all officers, agents and employees of the State, from and against all claims or damages for injuries to persons or property or death arising out of or incident to the performance or failure to perform the Grant. 10. LAWS The Grantee shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, regulations, court rules, policies of local and state and federal governments, as now or hereafter amended. Grant Agreement GRT24020 General Terms and Conditions Page 5 of 16 11. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS During the performance of this Grant, the Grantee shall comply with all federal, state, and local nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. In the event of the Grantee’s non‐compliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law, regulation or policy, this Grant may be rescinded, canceled or terminated in whole or in part. 12. RECAPTURE In the event that the Grantee fails to perform this Grant in accordance with state laws, federal laws, and/or the provisions of the Grant, OPD reserves the right to recapture funds in an amount to compensate OPD for the noncompliance in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. 13. RECORDS MAINTENANCE The Grantee shall maintain all books, records, documents, data and other evidence relating to this Grant. Grantee shall retain such records for a period of six (6) years following the end of the grant period. If any litigation, claim or audit is started before the expiration of the six (6) year period, the records shall be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been finally resolved. 14. RIGHT OF INSPECTION At no additional cost all records relating to the Grantee’s performance under this Grant shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, review, and audit by OPD, the Office of the State Auditor, and state officials so authorized by law, in order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and quality assurance under this Grant. The Grantee shall provide access to its facilities for this purpose. 15. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Grant or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Grant that can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of law and the fundamental purpose of this Grant and to this end the provisions of this Grant are declared to be severable. 16. SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS Any full or partial allocation of funds under this Grant is subject to the appropriation of funds by the Washington Legislature to OPD. 17. WAIVER Waiver of any default or breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default or breach. Any waiver shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Grant unless stated to be such in writing. Exhibit A Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit A – Grant Report #1 – Due June 1, 2024 Page 6 of 16 Washington State Office of Public Defense Public Defense Improvement Program City Grant Report #1 All City grant recipients are required to submit a completed copy of this report, along with corresponding documentation, to the Washington State Office of Public Defense by June 1, 2024. City: Date Completed: Contact Name: Title: Mailing Address: Phone: Email Address: Section I: Public Defense Expenditures/Budget 1.1 In 2023, the city paid indigent defense expenses as follows: City Funds Chapter 10.101 RCW State Grant Funds Other Funds Attorney salaries and benefits, contract and conflict attorney compensation $ $ $ Investigators, experts, interpreters, social workers, and other professional services $ $ $ Other public defense expenses $ $ $ Total $ $ $ Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit A – Grant Report #1 – Due June 1, 2024 Page 7 of 16 1.2 For 2024, the city has budgeted indigent defense expenses as follows: City Funds Chapter 10.101 RCW State Grant Funds Other Funds Attorney salaries and benefits, contract and conflict attorney compensation $ $ $ Investigators, experts, interpreters, social workers, and other professional services $ $ $ Other public defense expenses $ $ $ Total $ $ $ 1.3 What amount of the 2024 RCW 10.101 grant funds has been spent to date? $ Section II: Case Assignments 2.1 Provide the following data for the total number of public defense cases assignments in 2023: Fill in section 2.1(a) if the city has a public defender agency or contracts with a county public defender agency or non‐profit public defense firm. Fill in section 2.1(b) for list appointments or contracts with private attorneys. a. Cities using public defender agencies. Number of cases assigned to public defender agency (not including conflict counsel): Number of probation violations and other miscellaneous post sentencing hearings assigned: Number of full‐time‐equivalent public defenders: Average per‐attorney caseload, if available: b. Cities using list appointments or contracts with private firms. Number of cases assigned to public defense attorneys: Number of probation violations and other miscellaneous post sentencing hearings assigned: Number of attorneys with public defense contracts or on court’s appointment list: Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit A – Grant Report #1 – Due June 1, 2024 Page 8 of 16 Section III: Grant Funds 3.1 Permissible Use(s) of Grant Funds (See Section 4 of Grant Agreement Special Terms and Conditions): 3.2 Description of How Grant Funds Have Been Used to Date: 3.3 Plans for Utilizing Remaining Funds by End of Calendar Year (If Applicable): 3.4 Description of Impact State Funds Have Had on Local Public Defense Services: Section IV: Attachments and Tables 4.1 If the city has public defense contracts, fill out the Table of Public Defense Contracts (Table I), and attach a copy of each current contract in alphabetical order by attorney name. Failure to provide current contracts could result in an incomplete report. 4.2 If the court appoints public defense attorneys from a list, provide the name of each attorney and the compensation paid per case or per hour in the Table of List‐Appointed Public Defense Attorneys (Table II). 4.3 If the City has adopted any new public defense policies, ordinances, or resolutions within the last year, please attach them to this report. 4.4 Provide copies of attorneys’ 2024 second quarter Certificates of Compliance. Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit A – Grant Report #1 – Due June 1, 2024 Page 9 of 16 Table I: Public Defense Contracts and Subcontracts Currently in Effect (2024) Name of attorney/firm (If firm, please identify (1) the total number of attorney FTEs handling public defense cases, and (2) the name of each attorney handling public defense cases) Number of misdemeanor/ gross misdemeanor cases anticipated for the attorney/firm in 2024 Method and rate of payment (per case/per hour, etc.) Conflict cases only? Yes/No Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit A – Grant Report #1 – Due June 1, 2024 Page 10 of 16 Table II: List‐Appointed Public Defense Attorneys (2024) Name of attorney/firm (If firm, please identify (1) the total number of attorney FTEs handling public defense cases, and (2) the name of each attorney handling public defense cases) Method and rate of payment (per case/per hour, etc.) Number of cases assigned Exhibit B Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit B – Grant Report #2 – Due Dec. 1, 2024 Page 11 of 16 Washington State Office of Public Defense Public Defense Improvement Program City Grant Report #2 All City grant recipients are required to submit a completed copy of this report to the Washington State Office of Public Defense by December 1, 2024. Failure to timely submit this report could delay disbursement of 2025 grant funds. City: Report Date: Contact – Name/Title: Email: Phone: Address: 1. As of the date of this report, the city has paid indigent defense expenses as follows in 2024: City Funds Chapter 10.101 RCW State Grant Funds Other Funds Attorney salaries and benefits, contract and conflict attorney compensation $ $ $ Investigators, experts, interpreters, social workers, and other professional services $ $ $ Other public defense expenses $ $ $ Total $ $ $ Will all 2024 grant funds be expended by the end of the calendar year? Yes No Unsure Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit B – Grant Report #2 – Due Dec. 1, 2024 Page 12 of 16 2. Permissible Use(s) of Grant Funds (See Section 4 of Grant Agreement Special Terms and Conditions): 3. Description of How Grant Funds Have Been Used in 2024: 4. Plans for 2025 Grant Funds: 5. Description of Impact State Funds Have Had on Local Public Defense Services Exhibit C Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit C – Grant Report #3 – Due June 1, 2025 Page 13 of 16 Washington State Office of Public Defense Public Defense Improvement Program City Grant Report #3 All City grant recipients are required to submit a completed copy of this report, along with all public defense attorneys’ 2025 quarterly Certificates of Compliance to the Washington State Office of Public Defense by June 1, 2025. City: Report Date: Contact – Name/Title: Email: Phone: Address: 1. For 2025, the city has budgeted indigent defense expenses as follows: City Funds Chapter 10.101 RCW State Grant Funds Other Funds Attorney salaries and benefits, contract and conflict attorney compensation $ $ $ Investigators, experts, interpreters, social workers, and other professional services $ $ $ Other public defense expenses $ $ $ Total $ $ $ 2. What amount of the 2025 state grant funds has been spent to date? $ Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit C – Grant Report #3 – Due June 1, 2025 Page 14 of 16 3. Permissible Use(s) of Grant Funds (See Section 4 of Grant Agreement Special Terms and Conditions) 4. Description of How Grant Funds Have Been Used to Date: 5. Plans for Utilizing Remaining Funds by End of Calendar Year (If Applicable) 6. Description of Impact State Funds Have Had on Local Public Defense Services Exhibit D Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit D – Grant Report #4 – Due December 1, 2025 Page 15 of 16 Washington State Office of Public Defense Public Defense Improvement Program City Grant Report #4 All City grant recipients are required to submit a completed copy of this report to the Washington State Office of Public Defense by December 1, 2025. City: Report Date: Contact – Name/Title: Email: Phone: Address: 1. As of the date of this report, the city has paid indigent defense expenses as follows in 2025: City Funds Chapter 10.101 RCW State Grant Funds Other Funds Attorney salaries and benefits, contract and conflict attorney compensation $ $ $ Investigators, experts, interpreters, social workers, and other professional services $ $ $ Other public defense expenses $ $ $ Total $ $ $ Will all 2025 grant funds be expended by the end of the calendar year? Yes No Unsure Grant Agreement GRT24020 Exhibit D – Grant Report #4 – Due December 1, 2025 Page 16 of 16 2. Permissible Use(s) of Grant Funds (See Section 4 of Grant Agreement Special Terms and Conditions): 3. Description of How Grant Funds Have Been Used in 2025: 4. Description of Impact State Funds Have Had on Local Public Defense Services AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Affiliation Agreement with Pierce College for Paramedic Student Training COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: Fire Presenter: Pat McGanney, Fire Chief Phone: (360) 473-5381 SUMMARY: This agreement will allow Bremerton Fire Department to train Pierce College paramedic students. ATTACHMENTS: Affiliation Agreement for Pierce College FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No cost. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Affiliation Agreement with Pierce College; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/09/2021 A4 AFFILIATION AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into between Pierce College (“School”), 9401 Farwest Dr. SW, Lakewood, WA 98498 and City of Bremerton, on behalf of the Bremerton Fire Department, ("City"), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington. The purpose of this Agreement is for City , which is committed to training health care professionals, to provide desirable clinical learning experiences and facilities for School’s students. In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, School and City agree as follows: I.GENERAL PROVISIONS A.School and City agree that contemporaneous with or following execution of this Agreement and within the scope of its provisions, School may develop letter agreements with City to formalize operational details of the clinical education program. These details include, but are not limited to, the following: •Beginning dates and length of experience of preceptors (to be mutually agreed upon at least one month before the beginning of the clinical education program. •Number of students eligible to participate in the clinical education program. •Specific days, hours, and locations for the clinical education program. •Specific learning objectives and performance expectations for students. •Specific allocation of responsibilities for the faculty Liaison, clinical education. •Supervisor, and Preceptors, if any, referenced elsewhere in this Agreement. •Deadlines and format for student progress reports and evaluation forms. Any such letter agreements will be attachments to this Agreement, will be binding when signed by authorized representatives of each party, and may be modified by subsequent letter agreements signed by authorized representatives of each party. B. School and City will jointly plan the clinical education program and jointly evaluate students. Exchange of information will be maintained by on-site visits when practical and by letter or telephone in other instances. C. School and City will instruct their respective faculty, staff, and students participating in the clinical education program, to maintain confidentiality of student and patient information as required by law and by the policies and procedures of School and City. D.There will be no payment of charges or fees between School and City. 1 E.There will be no discrimination against any program participant or applicant under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, marital status, genetic information, pregnancy, the presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability, or the use of a trained guide dog or service animal by a person with a disability. II.SCHOOL’S RESPONSIBILITIES A.School will provide information to City concerning its curriculum and the professional and academic credentials of its faculty for the students. School will designate an appropriately qualified and credentialed faculty member to coordinate and act as the Liaison with City. School will be responsible for instruction and administration of the students’ academic education program. School will notify City in writing of any change or proposed change of its Liaison. School will have the final responsibility for grading students. B. School’s faculty will meet with the City clinical education Supervisor Preceptors, if any, at the beginning and end of the clinical education program to discuss and evaluate the clinical education program. These meetings will take place in person if practicable, otherwise by telephone conference. School is responsible for arranging and planning the meetings. C. School will provide the names and information pertaining to relevant education and training for all students enrolled in the clinical education program at least four weeks before the beginning date of the clinical education program. School is responsible for supplying any additional information required by City as set forth in this Agreement, prior to the arrival of students. School will notify City in writing of any change or proposed change in a student’s status. D. School will obtain evidence of current immunizations against diphtheria, tetanus, measles (rubeola), mumps, rubella (or a positive rubella titer), and of hepatitis B immunity status, documented by a protective titer, for those students who will be in contact with patients/clients. For each student born after 1956, School will maintain on file records of positive titer or of post-1967 immunization for rubella and rubeola. At the time of immunization, students with no history of exposure to chickenpox will be advised to get an immune titer. School will require yearly PPD testing, or follow-up as recommended if the students are PPD-positive or have had BCG. School will provide information to City regarding student status concerning the above requirements. E. School will assign the clinical education program ride site only those students who have satisfactorily completed the prerequisite didactic portion of the curriculum and who have evidence of completion of a CPR course based on American Heart Association or American Red Cross guidelines and related to the age group(s) with whom they will be working. 2 F. As a prerequisite to participation in the clinical education program. School shall require each student who may be placed in City to obtain his/her criminal history background record from the Washington State Patrol, pursuant to RCW 43.43.834 and RCW 43.43.838, to release a copy of that record to the School and to authorize the School to transmit that record or copy thereof to the City. Before the start of training, School will provide the City with the names of any students who have failed to provide the requested records, or who refuse to authorize the release of records to the City. The students will be informed that, whether or not they agree to obtain the record and agree to release it to School and City, City may conduct the background inquiry directly and the City may refuse placement of a student who does not provide the requested records or who has a record of prior criminal conduct. City understands and agrees that any information forwarded to it by School has been procured through this process. School does not certify the veracity of the records provided and, furthermore, the obligation to conduct appropriate background checks and the liability for non-compliance therewith remains the responsibility of City. G. School will comply with and ensure to the extent possible that students comply with the policies and procedures established by the City. School will notify each student of his/her status and responsibilities pursuant to this Agreement. This includes notification to students of the need to procure the insurance coverage required by the City as identified in section V. C. below prior to being admitted to the City. H. School will encourage each student participating in the clinical education program to acquire comprehensive health and accident insurance that will provide continuous coverage of such student during his or her participation in the education program. School will inform students that they are responsible for their own health needs, health care costs, and health insurance coverage. III.CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES City will provide students with a clinical education experience within the scope of health care services provided by the City. City will designate in writing Preceptors, if any, to be responsible for the clinical education program, and will designate in writing one person as the clinical education Supervisor, who will maintain contact with the School Designated Liaison to assure mutual participation in and review of the clinical education program and student progress. City will submit in writing to School the professional and academic credentials for the Preceptors and clinical education Supervisor. City will notify School in writing of any change or proposed change of the Preceptors or clinical education Supervisor. 3 B. City will provide students with access to sources of information necessary for the education program, within City's policies and procedures and commensurate with patients’ rights, including library resources and reference materials. C. City will make available to student’s basic supplies and equipment necessary for care of patients/clients and the clinical education program. Within the limitation of facilities, City will make available office and conference space for students and, if applicable, School faculty. D. City will submit required reports on each student’s performance and will provide an evaluation to School on forms provided by School. E. City retains full responsibility for the care of patients/clients and will maintain the quality of patient care without relying on the students’ clinical training activities for staffing purposes. F. City will have the right to take immediate temporary action to correct a situation where a student’s actions endanger patient care. As soon as possible thereafter, City's clinical education Supervisor will notify School of the action taken. All final resolutions of the student’s academic status in such situations will be made solely by School after reviewing the matter and considering whatever written factual information the City provides for School; however, City reserves the right to terminate the use of its facilities by a particular student where necessary to maintain its operation free of disruption and to ensure quality of patient care. G. On any day when a student is participating in the clinical education program at the City's facilities, City will provide to such student necessary emergency health care or first aid for accidents occurring in its facilities. The student will be responsible for the costs of all care. H. Except as provided in this Agreement, City will have no obligation to furnish medical or surgical care to any student. IV.STUDENTS’ STATUS AND RESPONSIBILITIES A.Students will have the status of learners and will not replace City personnel. Any service rendered by students is incidental to the educational purpose of the clinical education program. B. Students are required to adhere to the standards, policies, and regulations of District during their clinical education program. C. Students will wear appropriate attire and name tags and will conform to the standards and practices established by School during their clinical education program at School. 4 D. Students participating in the clinical education program will be and will remain students at School, and will in no sense be considered employees of City. The City does not and will not assume any liability under any law relating to Worker’s Compensation on account of any School student’s performing, receiving training, or traveling pursuant to this Agreement. Students will not be entitled to any monetary or other remuneration for services performed by them at City, nor will City otherwise have any monetary obligation to School or its students by virtue of this Agreement. V.LIABILITY COVERAGE PROVISIONS A.Each party to this Agreement will be responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of its own employees, officers, or agents in the performance of this Agreement. Neither party will be considered the agent of the other and neither party assumes any responsibility to the other party for the consequences of any act or omission of any person, firm, or corporation not a party to this Agreement. B. School is covered by the State of Washington Self-Insurance Program and the Tort Claims Act (Chapter 4.92 RCW). Claims against School and its employees, officers, and agents in the performance of their duties under this Agreement will be paid from the tort claims liability account as provided in Chapter 4.92 RCW. C. For students to be accepted at the City, students will be required to have medical malpractice and general liability coverage, whether through the student medical malpractice and general liability policies offered by the State of Washington, Office of Financial Management, Risk Management division, or otherwise, while working within the District. D. City maintains professional liability insurance coverage with Washington Cities Insurance Association (WCIA). Through that coverage, the City provides liability coverage for its employees, officers, and agents in the performance of this Agreement, and further provides the means for defense and payment of claims that may arise against such individuals. VI. TERM A.This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date for a term of three (3) years ("Initial Term”) and shall renew every three years commencing from the last date shown below; PROVIDED THAT the parties review this Agreement and memorialize their intent to renew the Agreement for a subsequent three-year period – such renewal being memorialized in writing three months prior to the expiration of the current three-year term. There shall be a maximum of two renewal periods. The Initial Term and any Renewal Term will be collectively referred to herein as “Term”. School and the City will jointly plan student placement in advance of each year’s beginning, considering the needs of the school for clinical placement, maximum number 5 of students for whom the City can provide a desirable clinical education experience, and the needs of other disciplines or schools requesting clinical placements. B. This agreement may be canceled by written notice one year prior to termination; however, such termination shall not become effective for the students then enrolled in the clinical education program if such termination prevents completion of their requirements for completion of the clinical education program. VII.PROVISIONS REGARDING BLOOD-BORNE PATHOGENS A.School certifies that it has trained each student it sends to the City in universal precautions and transmission of blood-borne pathogens, and that it will send to the City only students who have been trained in and have practiced using universal precautions. School has recommended the Hepatitis B (HBV) screening to all clinical education program students before assignment to City. Students may waive the HBV series but are required to have a TB screening and be up to date on all other immunizations. The City will provide personal protection equipment that is appropriate for the tasks assigned to School’s students. B. In the event a student sustains a needle-stick injury or other substantial exposure to bodily fluids of another or other potentially infectious material while participating in the clinical education program at the City, the City agrees to provide the following services: •Being seen by City's employee health service and/or emergency department as soon as possible after the injury. •Emergency medical care following the injury. •Initiation of HBV, Hepatitis C (HCV) and HIV protocol. •HIV counseling and appropriate testing. The student will be responsible for the costs of all care, testing, counseling, and obtaining necessary follow-up care. C.The source patient’s HBV, HCV and HIV status will be determined by the City in the usual manner to the extent possible. VIII.MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A.Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements, commitments, or understandings concerning the matters provided for herein. B.Amendment. This Agreement may be modified only by a subsequent written Agreement executed by the parties. The provisions in this Agreement may not 6 be modified by any attachment or letter agreement as described elsewhere in this Agreement. C.Order of Precedence. Any conflict or inconsistency in this Agreement and its attachments will be resolved by giving the documents precedence in the following order: 1.This Agreement. 2.Attachments to this Agreement in reverse chronological order. D. Governing Law. The parties’ rights or obligations under this Agreement will be construed in accordance with, and any claim or dispute relating thereto will be governed by, the laws of the State of Washington. E. Notices. All notices, demands, requests, or other communications required to be given or sent by School or City, will be in writing and will be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or transmitted by hand delivery or facsimile, addressed as follows: (a) To School: Pierce College Ft. Steilacoom 9401 Farwest Dr. SW Lakewood, WA 98498 (b) To Training Site: Bremerton Fire Department 911 Park Ave Bremerton, WA 98337 Each party may designate a change of address by notice in writing. All notices, demands, requests, or communications that are not hand-delivered will be deemed received three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, or upon confirmation of successful facsimile transmission. F. Survival. School and the City expressly intend and agree that the liability coverage provisions of this Agreement will survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason. G. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or of any other agreement, document or writing pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be held to be wholly or partially invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, said provision will be ineffective to that extent only, without in any way affecting the remaining parts or provisions of said agreement. 7 H. Waiver. Neither the waiver by any of the parties hereto of a breach of or a default under any of the provisions of this Agreement, nor the failure of either of the parties, on one or more occasions, to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or privilege hereunder, will thereafter be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of a similar nature, or as a waiver of any of such provisions, rights or privileges hereunder. I. Inspection. City will permit, on reasonable notice and request, the inspection of clinical and related facilities by agencies charged with responsibility for accreditation of School. J. HIPAA. School voluntarily provides students with training on the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). City will provide additional training on City’s specific HIPAA policies and procedures. School will direct its students and faculty to comply with the policies and procedures of the City. No protected healthcare information (PHI) is anticipated to be exchanged between City and School, but in the event such PHI is exchanged, the parities shall have previously executed the necessary business associate agreement. Solely for the purpose of defining students’ role in relation to the use and disclosure of City’s PHI, students acting pursuant to this Agreement are defined as members of City’s workforce. However, School’s students and faculty shall not be considered employees of the City. H. FERPA. The Parties agree to protect the participating students’ educational records in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g and any applicable policy of the Parties. To the extent permitted by law, the Parties may share information from participants’ educational records with each other so that each can perform its respective responsibilities under this AGREEMENT but shall not disclose or share education records with any third party. Pierce College The Associate Professor for Pierce Emergency Medical Services Program is: (Sarah Swart, sswart@pierce.ctc.edu, EMS Program, Pierce College Ft. Steilacoom Cascade 342, Lakewood WA, 98498, 253-964-6649) 8 The Contract Manager for Pierce College Health and Technology is: (YuVonne Bailey- Navarrette ybailey@pierce.ctc.edu, EMS Programs Director, Health and Technology, Pierce College Ft. Steilacoom, WA 98498, 253-964-6649) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. State of Washington State of Washington _________________________ __________________________ Signature Signature _________________________ ___________________________ Title Date Title Date City of Bremerton Fire By __________________ (date) FIRST THREE-YEAR RENEWAL SCHOOL CITY 9 By: By: Title: Title: Date: ___________________________________ Date: ____________________________ SECOND THREE YEAR RENEWAL SCHOOL CITY By: By: Title: Title: Date: ____________________________________ Date: ____________________________ 10 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Mutual Aid Interlocal Agreement for Tactical Emergency Medical Support Services COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: Fire Presenter: Pat McGanney, Fire Chief Phone: (360) 473-5381 SUMMARY: This agreement is to provide for the joint and cooperative undertaking of the parties to collaborate and combine their personnel, equipment, expertise, and technical resources to provide a rapid response by SWAT and KCT Providers to Law Enforcement Critical Incidents within Kitsap County. ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): Minimal cost already in 2024 budget. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Mutual Aid Interlocal Agreement for Tactical Emergency Medical Support Services; and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/09/2021 A5 1 KC ______________ INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL AID TEMS SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL AID TEMS SERVICES (“Agreement”) is between the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the City of Bremerton, on behalf of the Bremerton Fire Department, the Poulsbo Fire Department, on behalf of the Poulsbo Fire Department; North Kitsap Fire and Rescue; Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue; South Kitsap Fire and Rescue, (collectively “Fire Agencies”) and Kitsap County, on behalf of the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”), all shall be collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party”. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, chapter 39.34 RCW, allows public agencies to enter into agreements for joint and cooperative action more efficiently within their jurisdictions. WHEREAS, the Fire Agencies and KCSO each have unique expertise which are beneficial to the public and each other in the event of a Law Enforcement Critical Incident. WHEREAS, this Agreement will improve the life safety of the public and emergency responders during high threat incidents that may involve multiple causalities through the coordination of law enforcement activities, provided by the Kitsap County Sheriff ’s Office, and emergency medical services, provided by Fire Agencies, operating under the Incident Management System. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to execute this Agreement to multiply and combine their personnel, equipment, expertise and other resources when responding to emergencies, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, and the mutual promises and covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply unless otherwise provided in the Agreement. A. Fire Chiefs means the Chiefs of the Bainbridge Island Fire Department, the City of Bremerton Fire Department, the Poulsbo Fire Department, North Kitsap Fire and Rescue, Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue, and South Kitsap Fire and Rescue. B. KCSO means the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office. C. KCT Joint Operations Board or ‘Board’ consists of the Kitsap County Operations Chiefs, a Division of the Kitsap County Fire Chief’s Association, and the Sheriff. D. KCT Providers means medically trained staff assigned by a Fire Agency to participate in TEMS activities within the Fire Agency service areas subject to the terms and 2 conditions of this Agreement. KCT Providers shall not be armed during any TEMS activity and shall not operate in any law enforcement capacity. E. Kitsap 911 (formerly known as “CENCOM”) is the agency that provides public safety emergency communication services for Kitsap County. F. Law Enforcement Critical Incidents means those involving high threatdynamic incidents such as: “active shooter”; explosions in public forums/events; random or intentional killing of multiple civilians in public and private assemblies; warrant service; SWAT activations; fugitive tracking; and similar acutely violent circumstances. G. Lead Fire Agency means the Fire Agency selected by the Kitsap County Fire Chief’s Association. H. Sheriff means the Kitsap County Sheriff or designee. I. SWAT means Special Weapons and Tactics Team. J. SWAT Chief means the KCSO Division Chief responsible for SWAT or designee. K. SWAT Commander means the SWAT commander that provides the tactical command on scene. The SWAT Commander will take over tactical command from the officer in charge. L. TEMS means Tactical Emergency Medical Support team which has a Fire Agency Component and law enforcement agency component. Each component is responsible for its own training (initial and ongoing), materials, service, equipment, actions, and policy as they relate to the delivery of emergency medical support or law enforcement services to be provided. M. TEMS Standards means the Tactical Response and Operation Standards for law enforcement agencies adopted by the National Tactical Officers Association, as amended. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the joint and cooperative undertaking of the parties to collaborate and combine their personnel, equipment, expertise and technical resources to provide a rapid response by SWAT and KCT Providers to Law Enforcement Critical Incidents within Kitsap County; identify persons responsible for administering the services; and define the responsibilities of the Parties as contemplated in RCW 39.34.030. 3. ORGANIZATION. No separate legal or administrative entity is created by this Agreement nor do the parties intend to create through this Agreement a separate legal or administrative entity subject to suit. 3 4. ADMINISTRATOR. The Kitsap County Sheriff, and the Fire Chiefs of each Fire Agency will administer this Agreement for each Party and will meet as needed for the purpose of reviewing this agreement and the recommendations of the Board for adoption. Neither Party is intending to assume responsibility or liability for the actions, or failures to act, of another Party and/or their respective employees. 5. BOARD DUTIES. The Board shall elect a chairperson who shall be responsible for maintaining records and scheduling meeting(s) which shall occur at least annually. Meeting minutes shall be submitted to the Sheriff and Kitsap County Fire Chiefs Association. The Board will have no authority to alter this agreement or implement policies, but will be responsible for proposing recommendations to the Kitsap County Sherriff and the Kitsap County Fire Chiefs’ Association on the following subjects; : A. Meeting as needed to implement and comply with the terms of this Agreement. B. Creating operational policies as needed to carry out the terms of this Agreement. C. Selecting, by majority vote, the Fire Agency that shall serve as the Lead Fire Agency. D. Developing and updating the KCT Provider Job Description. E. Developing policies and procedures consistent with the mission and goals of this Agreement. F. Establishing (and disbanding) committees, as it deems appropriate, and provide any other guidance to the Parties as reasonably required to implement and comply with the terms of this Agreement. G. Other duties and responsibilities deemed appropriate by the Board. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE/DURATION. This Agreement shall be effective from the date first executed by two parties and shall remain in effect unless terminated or extended. Should fewer than all named Parties execute this Agreement, the Agreement when filed as provided herein will be effective as between the County and the Parties that have executed the Agreement to the same extent as if no other Party had been named. 7. FILING. Prior to entry into force, this Agreement will be filed with the Kitsap County Auditor’s Office or, alternatively, listed by subject on a public agency’s web site or other electronically retrievable public source in compliance with RCW 39.34.040. 8. ADDITIONAL PARTIES. Additional governmental entities may to be added as a party to this Agreement in the future, with the approval of the Sheriff and the Kitsap County Fire Chiefs Association, by executing an amendment this Agreement executed by the party requesting to begin participation and all current Parties to this Agreement. The Amendment must be filed with the Kitsap County Auditor’s Office in compliance with RCW 39.34.040. 9. TERMINATION. Any Party may terminate their participation in this Agreement with 60- days prior notice to the other Parties. Termination by one Party does not terminate the Agreement as to the remaining Parties. A terminated Party assumes no responsibility for 4 the acts or omissions occurring after the termination effective date but will remain liable for acts or omissions occurring prior to the termination effective date. 10. PROPERTY A. The parties do not anticipate the acquisition of property for the performance of this Agreement and any property acquired by a Party during this Agreement shall be held by and remain the property of the acquiring Party. B. All durable and consumable goods purchased and provided by a Fire Agency shall be returned to the Fire Agency if the KCT Provider leaves the team or the Fire Agency terminates involvement with this Agreement. 11. COMPENSATION. No Party shall seek or be entitled to compensation for services rendered under this Agreement from any other Party to this Agreement. Nothing shall prohibit a Fire Agency from obtaining reimbursement from a third-party as provided in 44 CFR Part 151 (REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS OF FIREFIGHTING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY) or from other agencies not a party to this Agreement. 12. INSURANCE. Each Party shall maintain in good standing during the term of this Agreement adequate general liability insurance to protect against losses and risks arising out of or related to the Services provided under this Agreement in such amounts as are prudent and customary for the jurisdiction. 13. INDEMNIFICATION A. To the extent of its comparative liability, each Party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other Party, and the other Party’s elected and appointed officials, employees, agents, and volunteers (and their marital communities) from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to court costs, attorneys fees, and alternative dispute resolution costs, for violation of any law applicable to a Party, any violation of those policies and procedures adopted by the Parties to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, any personal injury, or any bodily injury, sick disease, or death, and for any damage to or destruction of any property (including the loss of uses therefrom) which are alleged or proven to be caused by an act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of the Party, its elected and appointed officials, employees, agents, or volunteers (and their marital communities). B. Participation in Defense, No Waiver. A Party reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to participate in the defense of any claim, damages, losses or expenses and such participation shall not constitute a waiver of the Party’s indemnity obligations under this Agreement. C. Survival of Indemnity Obligations. All indemnity obligations shall survive the completion, expiration or termination of this Agreement. 14. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY A. Each Party and its respective employees or agents will act as an independent contractor and continue to be the employees or agents of that Party, which will be solely and exclusively responsible for their employees and agents. Employees and agents of one 5 party will not be considered for any purpose whatsoever under this Agreement to be employees or agents of another Party to this Agreement. No Party will have the authority to bind another Party, absent a written agreement of the parties, nor the authority to control the employees, agents, or contractors of another Party to this Agreement. All rights, duties and obligations of the employer will remain with the employing Party. Each Party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other Parties in any action arising from or related to the negligence of its own employees, including all costs of defense and attorney's fees. B. Each Party shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the compensation, benefits, training expenses, and all other costs and expenses for its employees. Each Party wil l be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws, collective bargaining agreements, and civil service rules and regulations regarding its own employees. C. Personnel assigned as TEMS members shall conform to rules and procedures of their employing agency, as well as Kitsap County SWAT policies and procedures. It is the responsibility of the TEMS participants to inform the SWAT Chief of any policy conflicts. All disciplinary matters shall be the responsibility of the TEMS member’s employer. D. Fire Agencies may, in their discretion, refuse to commit and/or recall personnel, equipment, or both, to a position and/or task as deemed appropriate by Fire Agency’s command. 15. NOTICE. All notices will be delivered in writing to the Fire Chiefs or Sheriff. Notice mailed by regular post (including first class) shall be deemed to have been given on the second business day following the date of mailing, if properly mailed and addressed. Notices sent by certified or registered mail shall be deemed to have been given on the day next following the date of mailing, if properly mailed and addressed. For all types of mail, the postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing. 16. NONDISCRIMINATION. No Party will discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, disability, or other circumstance prohibited by federal, state, or local law, and shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-354 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the performance of this Agreement. 17. GOVERNING LAW, VENUE, FEES. The Agreement will be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance, without regard to conflicts of law or choice of law provisions. Any action arising out of or in connection with the Agreement may be instituted and maintained only in a court of competent jurisdiction in Kitsap County, Washington or as provided by RCW 36.01.050. Should any Party bring any legal action, each Party in such action shall bear the cost of its own attorney’s fees and court costs. 6 18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The parties shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to them in connection with the Services provided and matters covered in the Agreement, including but not limited to applicable regulations of the Washington Department of Labor and Industries, including WA-DOSH Safety Regulations, bargaining agreements, and all relevant state and federal workplace safety requirements and . 19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of a dispute between the Parties regarding the terms and condition, or performance, of this Agreement, the Parties shall use their best efforts to resolve those difference on an informal basis. 20. NO JOINT VENTURE. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or manner of partnership, joint venture, or other joint enterprise between the Parties. 21. IMPLIED CONTRACT TERMS. Each provision of law and any terms required by law to be in the Agreement are made a part of the Agreement as if fully stated in it. 22. PRESS AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION. Press releases and/or the release of information to the media will be made by the agency that has the jurisdiction where the event occurred in accordance with the releasing agency’s established media release policy. No press releases will be made by another agency regarding the incident without the prior approval of the agency(s) having jurisdiction, and the Kitsap County Fire Chiefs’ Association. No Party will release the Team tactics, intelligence or other information, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement. RCW 42.56.240. 23. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, to the extent any record, including any electronic, audio, paper or other media, is required to be kept or indexed as a public record in accordance with the Washington Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW (as may be amended), each Party agrees to maintain all records constituting public records and to produce or assist the other Party in producing such records, within the time frames and parameters set forth in state law. 24. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. Any term or condition of this Agreement or application thereof deemed to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, shall not affect any other terms or conditions of the Agreement and the parties’ rights and obligations will be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision. 25. SURVIVAL. Those provisions of the Agreement that by their sense and purpose should survive expiration or termination of the Agreement shall so survive. Those provisions include, without limitation, the respective responsibilities of each Party, compensation, and indemnification. 26. HEADINGS. Headings of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 7 27. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains all terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties, except necessary operational agreements, and supersedes any other agreement or understanding of the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. No other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind the Parties. 28. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be amended from time to time as deemed appropriate by the parties, provided, any such amendment will not become effective unless written and signed by all parties to this Agreement with the same formality as this Agreement. 29. DISCLAIMER. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed in any manner that would limit a Party’s authority or powers under law. 30. NO THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS. This Agreement is intended to be solely between the parties. No part of this Agreement shall be construed to add, supplement, or amend existing rights, benefits, or privileges of any third-party. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as giving any benefits, rights, remedies, or claims to any other person, firm, corporation, or other entity including, without limitation, the public or any member thereof, or to authorize anyone not a party to this Agreement to maintain a suit for breach of contract, personal injuries, property damage, or any other relief in law or equity in connection with this Agreement. 31. ASSIGNMENT. The rights or obligations under this Agreement, and any claims arising thereunder, are not assignable or delegable by any Party. 32. NO WAIVER. A failure by any Party to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that Party from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement unless stated to be such in a writing signed by an authorized representative of the Party. 33. COUNTERPARTS, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE. The Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same agreement. A facsimile, email, or other electronically delivered signatures of the parties shall be deemed to constitute original signatures and deemed to constitute duplicate originals. 34. AUTHORIZATION. Any authorizations, actions required or permitted to be taken, and any document required or permitted to be executed under this Agreement will be taken or executed only by a duly authorized representative of the Party. Each Party warrants and represents to the other that the person signing below has been properly authorized and empowered to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom they sign. DATED THIS ____ DAY OF _____________________, 2023. KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 8 ______________________________________________ JOHN GESE, SHERIFF DATED or ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2023. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON __________________________________ CHARLOTTE GARRIDO, Chair __________________________________ CHRISTINE ROLFES, Commissioner __________________________________ KATHERINE T. WALTERS, Commissioner ATTEST: _____________________________ Dana Daniels, Clerk of the Board DATED THIS __ DAY OF _____________________, 2023. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT ______________________________________________ JARED MORAVEC, FIRE CHIEF Bainbridge Island Fire Department DATED or ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2023. BAINBRIDGE ISLAND FIRE 9 __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ APPROVED _____________________________ ______________ Clerk of the Board DATED THIS __ DAY OF _____________________, 2023. POULSBO FIRE DEPARTMENT ______________________________________________ JAMES GILLARD, FIRE CHIEF Poulsbo Fire Department DATED or ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2023. POULSBO FIRE DEPARTMENT 10 __________________________________ Chairman, Jim Ingalls __________________________________ Darryl Milton __________________________________ Dave Ellingson __________________________________ Jeff Uberuaga __________________________________ Bill Whiteley APPROVED _____________________________ ______________ Clerk of the Board DATED THIS __ DAY OF _____________________, 2023. NORTH KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE ______________________________________________ RICK LANGANDEUR, Fire Chief 11 DATED or ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2023. NORTH KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ATTEST: ____________________________________ District Secretary DATED THIS __ DAY OF _____________________, 2023. CENTRAL KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT ______________________________________________ JASON CHRISTIAN, Fire Chief DATED or ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2023. CENTRAL KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT ____________________________________ BOB MUHLEMAN, Board Chair 12 ____________________________________ KEN ERICKSON, Commissioner ____________________________________ NATE ANDREWS, Commissioner ____________________________________ ROD ELMORE, Commissioner ATTEST: ____________________________________ District Secretary DATED THIS __ DAY OF _____________________, 2023. SOUTH KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT ______________________________________________ JEFF FAUCETT, Fire Chief DATED or ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________________, 2023. SOUTH KITSAP FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT 13 ____________________________________ GERALD PREUSS, Vice Chair Position 1 ____________________________________ DUSTY WILEY, Chair Position 2 ____________________________________ MICHAEL ESLAVA, Position 3 ____________________________________ KYLE JOYCE, Position 4 ____________________________________ PAUL GOLNIK, Position 5 ATTEST: ____________________________________ District Secretary AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Interagency Agreement with WA State Department of Natural Resources COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: Fire Presenter: Pat McGanney, Fire Chief Phone: (360) 473-5381 SUMMARY: This agreement will allow the City of Bremerton Fire Department to provide resources to DNR and establish payment and reimbursement responsibilities to the City of Bremerton. This is a renewal of the current agreement that expires December 31, 2023. ATTACHMENTS: Interagency Agreement with DNR FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): No cost. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Interagency Agreement with Department of Natural Resources and authorize the Mayor to finalize and execute the agreement with substantially the same terms and conditions as presented. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/09/2021 A6 Agreement No. 93-105219 1 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) and CITY OF BREMERTON NO. 93-105219 PI: 221, 222, 223, 224 Funding Source: State Grant Funded: ☐ Yes ☒ No This Agreement is made and entered into between the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as DNR, and the below named District/RFA/Department hereinafter referred to as the City of Bremerton. DNR and CITY OF BREMERTON enter into this agreement under Chapter 39.34, Interlocal Cooperation Act. CITY OF BREMERTON 911 Park Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone: 360-473-5380 Email: patrick.mcganney@ci.bremerton.wa.us IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: 1.0 Purpose. The limited purpose of this Agreement is for City of Bremerton to provide employees, referred to as single resources, equipment, material and/or services for wildfire or other emergency response and to establish DNR’s payment and reimbursement responsibilities to City of Bremerton for providing such single resources, equipment material and/or services. Dispatches under this agreement are limited to the State of Washington, unless the single resource is rostered on a Pacific Northwest Incident Management Team (IMT) type 1, 2 or 3. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 2 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 2.0 Scope of Work. The City of Bremerton shall furnish the necessary personnel, equipment, material and/or services and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to perform work set forth in the Attachment A – Scope of Work. 3.0 Period of Performance. The period of performance of this Agreement shall begin on _________________________, 2023, and end on December 31, 2028, unless terminated sooner as provided herein. 4.0 Billing Procedures. City of Bremerton shall submit invoices within sixty (60) days of the last date of demobilization. Payment for approved goods and/or services will be made by check, warrant or account transfer within 30 days of receipt of the invoice and required documentation. Upon expiration of the Agreement, invoices shall be paid, if received within 30 days after the expiration date. However, invoices for all work done within a fiscal year must be submitted within 30 days after the end of DNR’s fiscal year, which is June 30th. Each invoice submitted to DNR shall include information needed by DNR to determine the actual expenditures to be reimbursed and the exact nature of all approved expenditures for services provided. Invoices & billing packages shall be prepared according to the requirements outlined in Attachment A. 5.0 Records Maintenance. City of Bremerton shall maintain books, records, documents and other evidence, to sufficiently document all direct and indirect costs incurred by City of Bremerton in providing the services. These records shall be available for inspection, review, or audit by personnel of the DNR, other personnel authorized by the DNR, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials as authorized by law. City of Bremerton shall keep all books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement for the retention period established under the applicable Washington State Records Retention Schedule. The Office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, and any persons authorized by the parties shall have full access to and the right to examine any of these materials during this period. Records and other documents in any medium furnished by one party to this agreement to the other party, will remain the property of the furnishing party, unless otherwise agreed. The receiving party will not disclose this material to any third parties without first notifying the furnishing party and giving it a reasonable opportunity to respond. Each party will use reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that records and documents provided by the other party are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. 6.0 Independent Capacity. The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in performing this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents of the other party. 7.0 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Amendments shall be in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 3 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 8.0 Termination for Convenience. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 calendar days’ prior written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 9.0 Termination for Cause. If for any cause either party does not fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party violates any of the terms and conditions, the aggrieved party will give the other party written notice of the failure or violation. The aggrieved party will give the other party 15 working days to correct the violation or failure. If the failure or violation is not corrected within 15 days, the aggrieved party may immediately terminate this Agreement by notifying the other party in writing. 10.0 Disputes. If a dispute arises, each party will make a good faith effort to resolve issues at the lowest possible level in their respective agencies. If they cannot resolve an issue, they will elevate the issue within their respective chains of command to resolve it. ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of any issue of controversy under this agreement, the parties may pursue Alternate Dispute Resolution procedures to voluntarily resolve those issues. These procedures may include, but are not limited to, conciliation, facilitation, mediation, and fact finding. 11.0 Governance. This contract is entered into the authority granted by the laws of the State of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws. If there is an inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: (1) Applicable federal statutes and rules, that supersede applicable State of Washington statutes and regulations; (2) State of Washington statutes and regulations; (3) Scope of Work; and (4) Any other provisions of the agreement, including materials incorporated by reference. 12.0 Assignment. The work to be provided under this Agreement and any claim arising from this Agreement cannot be assigned or delegated in whole or in part by either party, without the express prior written consent of the other party. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold consent. 13.0 Waiver. A party that fails to exercise its rights under this agreement is not precluded from subsequently exercising its rights. A party’s rights may only be waived through a written amendment to this agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 4 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 14.0 Severability. The provisions of this agreement are severable. If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference should be held invalid, the other provisions of this Agreement without the invalid provision remain valid. 15.0 Responsibilities of the Parties/Indemnification. DNR shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Bremerton from all claims, costs, damages or expenses arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of DNR. Likewise, the City of Bremerton shall indemnify DNR from all claims, costs, damages or expenses arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of the City of Bremerton. In the case of negligence of both the City of Bremerton and DNR, any damages shall be levied in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to each party. For this purpose, each party by mutual negotiation, hereby waives any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. 16.0 Insurance. Before using any of said rights granted herein and its own expense, City of Bremerton shall purchase and maintain, or require its agent(s)/subcontractor to purchase and maintain, the insurance described below for the entire duration of this Agreement. Failure to purchase and maintain the required insurance may result in the termination of the Agreement at DNR’s option. All insurance provided in compliance with this Agreement shall be primary as to any other insurance or self-insurance programs afforded to, or maintained by, the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. City of Bremerton shall provide DNR with certificates of insurance, executed by a duly authorized representative of each insurer, showing compliance with the insurance requirements specified in this Agreement before using any of said rights granted herein. The description section of the certificate shall contain the Contract Number and the name of the DNR Project Manager. City of Bremerton shall also provide renewal certificates as appropriate during the term of this Agreement. City of Bremerton shall include all subcontractors and agents as insured under all required insurance policies or shall provide separate certificates of insurance for each subcontractor or agent. Failure of City of Bremerton to have its subcontractors and agents comply with the insurance requirements contained herein does not limit City of Bremerton’s liability or responsibility. INSURANCE TYPES & LIMITS: The limits of insurance, which may be increased by State, as deemed necessary, shall not be less than as follows: Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: City of Bremerton shall purchase and maintain commercial general liability insurance with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 per each occurrence. If such CGL insurance contains aggregate limits, the general aggregate limits shall be at least twice the "each occurrence" limit, and the products-completed operations aggregate limit shall be at least twice the "each occurrence" limit. All insurance must cover liability arising out of premises, operations, independent contractors, products completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract (including the tort liability of DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 5 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 another party assumed in a business contract) and contain separation of insured (cross-liability) condition. Employer's liability ("Stop Gap") Insurance: City of Bremerton shall purchase and maintain employer’s liability insurance and if necessary, commercial umbrella liability insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each accident for bodily injury by accident and $2,000,000 each employee for bodily injury by disease. Business Auto Policy (BAP) Insurance: City of Bremerton shall purchase and maintain business auto insurance and if necessary, commercial umbrella liability insurance with a limit of not less than $2,000,000 per accident, with such insurance covering liability arising out of "Any Auto". The policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage and cover a “covered pollution cost or expense.” City of Bremerton waives all rights of subrogation against State for the recovery of damages to the extent they are covered by business auto liability or commercial umbrella liability insurance. Industrial Insurance (Workers Compensation): City of Bremerton shall comply with Title 51 RCW by maintaining workers compensation insurance for its employees City of Bremerton waives all rights of subrogation against State for recovery of damages to the extent they are covered by Industrial Insurance, employer’s liability, general liability, excess, or umbrella insurance. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: Additional Insured: DNR, its officials, agents, and employees shall be named as additional insured by endorsement on all general liability, excess, and umbrella insurance policies. Cancellation: DNR shall be provided written notice before cancellation or non-renewal of any insurance referred to therein, in accord with the following specifications. 1. Insurers subject to Chapter 48.18 RCW (Admitted and Regulated by the Insurance Commissioner): The insurer shall give the State 45-days advance notice of cancellation or nonrenewal. If cancellation is due to non-payment of premium, the State shall be given 10-days advance notice of cancellation. 2. Insurers subject to Chapter 48.15 RCW (Surplus Lines): The State shall be given 20-days advance notice of cancellation. If cancellation is due to non-payment of premium, the State shall be given 10-days advance notice of cancellation. Insurance Carrier Rating: All insurance shall be issued by companies admitted to do business in the State of Washington and have a rating of A-, Class VII, or better. Any exception must be reviewed and approved by the DNR Risk Manager or the DNR Contracts Manager, in the Risk Manager’s absence. If an insurer is not admitted to do business in the State of Washington, all insurance policies and procedures for issuing the insurance policies must comply with Chapters 48.15 RCW and 284-15 WAC. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 6 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 Self-Insurance: If City of Bremerton is self-insured, including insurance under a recognized governmental entity insurance pool evidence of its status as a self-insured entity shall be provided to State. The evidence should demonstrate that City of Bremerton’s self-insurance meets all of the required insurance coverage of this Agreement to the satisfaction of State including the description of the funding mechanism and its financial condition. If the funding mechanism or financial condition of the self-insurance program of City of Bremerton is inadequate, then State may require the purchase of additional commercial insurance to comply with this Agreement. Waiver: City of Bremerton waives all rights of subrogation against State for recovery of damages to the extent these damages are covered by general liability, excess, or umbrella insurance maintained pursuant to this Agreement. 17.0 Complete Agreement in Writing. This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties. 18.0 Contract Management. District Contract Manager Information DNR Contract Manager Information Patrick McGanney City of Bremerton 911 Park Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone: 360-473-5380 Email address: patrickmcganney@ci.bremerton.wa.us Daniel Eide Department of Natural Resources 950 Farman Avenue North Enumclaw, WA 98022 Phone: 360-802-7030 Email address: daniel.eide@dnr.wa.gov District Project Manager Information DNR Project Manager Information Patrick McGanney City of Bremerton 911 Park Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone: 360-473-5380 Email address: patrickmcganney@ci.bremerton.wa.us Daniel Eide Department of Natural Resources 950 Farman Avenue North Enumclaw, WA 98022 Phone: 360-802-7030 Email address: daniel.eide@dnr.wa.gov DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 7 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 By signature below, the Parties certify that the individuals listed in this document, as representatives of the Parties, are authorized to act in their respective areas for matters related to this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement. CITY OF BREMERTON STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES – SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION Signature Date Signature Date Greg Wheeler Don Melton Name Name Mayor Region Manager - Acting Title Title 911 Park Avenue 950 Farman Avenue North Bremerton, WA 98337 Enumclaw, WA 98022 Address Address 360-473-5380 360-825-1631 Telephone Telephone Signature Date Pat McGanney – Fire Chief Name& Title Signature Date Kylie Finnell – City Attorney Name & Title Signature Date Angela Hoover – City Clerk Name & Title DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 8 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF WORK This agreement is to allow City of Bremerton to provide personnel for wildfire or emergency response within the State of Washington and to define DNR’s responsibility to pay and reimburse City of Bremerton. This includes IMT members and wildland resources (personnel, equipment, services and supplies available, or potentially available, for assignment to incidents) Personnel and equipment are described by kind and type, e.g., ground, water, air, etc., and may be used in tactical, support or overhead capacities at an incident. This agreement will not be an avenue for dispatches to fires outside of the State of Washington with the exception of rostered Type 1, 2 and 3 IMT members. This agreement does not address wildfire or emergency response operations, incident command or operational decisions. If a district/department has a Forest land Response Agreement (FLRA) it will take precedence over this agreement for dispatches to wildfire incidents, and this agreement will only be used for dispatching of IMT members to non-wildfire/all-hazard incidents. This agreement extends to all District/Department members as defined below:  Washington Fire Service (WFS) agency personnel that are full-time and part-time paid employees, and personnel under contract/agreement with the District/Department will be paid by the District/Department. DNR will reimburse District/Department costs as outlined in this agreement. Personnel covered under this section are regularly paid by the agency for performed work and are compensated the same for work including if assigned to an incident covered by this agreement “Full and Part Time Personnel.”  Members dispatched by DNR from a WFS agency that have contracts for the sole purpose of responding to wildfire or non-wildfire incidents outside of the agency’s jurisdictional boundaries are paid by the agency and reimbursed in accordance with the Washington State Wage & Equipment Rate Guide “Temporary Personnel.”  Members of a WFS agency who are volunteers will need to be hired by DNR via the DNR casual hire process and paid directly by DNR. This may be completed pre-season, and shall be completed prior to the first dispatch. The local DNR Region office will handle the casual hire process. District/Department agrees that/to: 1) All personnel dispatched will have a valid Incident Qualification Card (red card) stating current qualifications; and will adhere to qualifications and standards described in PMS 310-1; 2) Provide a copy of the Master IQS Record for each participating employee (needed to update status in Interagency Resource Ordering Capability (IROC); 3) Provide local DNR Dispatch with status of each employee who is listed as a rostered IMT member every Monday by 1200 hours. Dispatch will then update their status in IROC for that week (0800 Tuesday to 0800 Tuesday). DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 9 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 4) All personnel and equipment dispatched will be paid by the District/Department; (except volunteers will follow payment procedures outlined in their individual agreement and be paid directly by DNR); 5) All Equipment and Personnel dispatched under this agreement will arrive at each incident with a copy of their current agreement. 6) Invoice for personnel, equipment, & travel cost billed to DNR shall be submitted within sixty (60) days and will include the following: a. DNR Personnel Reimbursement Request Worksheet b. Original Emergency Fire Time Report (OF-288); hourly wage rate including salaries & benefit (regular and OT) for personnel hours on the OF-288. c. Original Shift Ticket (OF-297) documenting mileage to/from incident as well as daily mileage incurred on the incident signed by incident supervisor. d. Original Emergency Equipment Use Invoice (OF-286) signed by finance section on the incident. e. Copy of district/department shift schedule f. Earning statements showing hourly wage for each employee g. Receipts or Copy of Employee travel reimbursement for travel expenses. h. Copy of Resource Order card. 7) Volunteers shall submit original copies of payment documents directly to the DNR region office for payment. 8) For fire line or off-road use, only utilize agency owned vehicles or procured rental vehicles. If agency owned vehicles are available, they shall be used prior to procuring a rental vehicle. a. Rental vehicles for off-road use must be procured using the USFS NERV rental vehicle agreement. b. Off-road rental vehicles procured from alternative sources other than the agreement listed above are not compensable. c. Rental vehicle authorization must be documented on the resource order. Please speak with your local DNR Region for more specific information. d. In order to provide appropriate tracking for all rental vehicles, rentals ordered for overhead shall be ordered using the resource’s O#. They do not require their separate resource order number. e. The use of USFS NERV rental vehicles is specific to off-road use. Rental vehicles used for non-fire line positions must be approved on the resource order, and shall be rented through alternative sources other than the USFS NERV rental vehicle agreement. DNR agrees that/to: 1) Status the employee in the Interagency Resource Ordering Capability System (IROC). 2) Dispatch resources on preseason IMT rosters, and alternate pool list. 3) Reimburse the District/Department within 30 days of receipt of complete & accurate invoice and required documentation. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 10 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 4) Reimburse the District/Department for Temporary Personnel under contract or agreement with the District/Department, as defined above, per the Interagency Wildfire Resource Wage Rates in the Washington State Wage & Equipment Rate Guide. 5) Reimburse the District/Department for Full and Part Time Personnel (as defined above) to the resource provider at the resource provider’s actual total cost. This will include backfill cost for the Full-time Personnel as outlined in the State Mobilization Plan. a. DNR will reimburse district/department of all regular scheduled hours for the personnel assigned to the incident. b. The DNR will not pay for muster time, wildland premium pay, portal to portal, or other unspecified pay provisions. c. Sleeping Periods, Meal Breaks, Time required for vehicle/equipment maintenance, Crew Change Time, Out of Service Time are considered non-compensable. 6) Reimburse Fire Service District/Department for approved travel expenses. The following guidelines apply: a. Per-diem is authorized for resources while traveling to an incident for meals that they are in travel status for the entire DNR designated meal period, and will be based on where the resource stops to sleep. i. Breakfast: 7AM-8AM ii. Lunch: 12PM-1PM iii. Dinner: 6PM-7PM b. Once arriving at an incident all resources shall stay and eat in camp. Resources may not seek reimbursement for meals or lodging unless services are not provided by the incident. c. Approval for per diem shall be documented on the resource order card, or through written approval including justification, from the Incident Commander. d. Reimbursement for approved per-diem for incidents in Washington will be paid in accordance with Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) rates. Receipts are not required. e. Reimbursement for approved per-diem for incidents outside Washington, will be paid using the U.S. General Service Administration (GSA) daily per diem rates, applying the following breakdown: 25% for Breakfast, 30% for Lunch, 45% for Dinner, applied to daily totals including meals & incidental rates. Receipts are not required. f. Local resources who return home each night, and do not remain in camp overnight will not be entitled to per diem. g. Hotels will only be reimbursed at actual expenses including daily rate and applicable taxes, not to exceed the government rates established in (GSA). All hotel reimbursements require an itemized receipt, and must be approved with a resource order or written approval from the Incident Commander. Booking fees associated with online travel agents are non-compensable. h. Alternate accommodations may be utilized at the expense of the user. The cost for alternative accommodations is not reimbursable. i. For travel home if sack lunches are provided, per diem claims will not be reimbursed. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 Agreement No. 93-105219 11 of 11 Form update date: 22.06.15 j. Travel time to and from the incident will be paid according to the DNR pay provisions in the Washington State Wage & Equipment Rate Guide. k. Travel time and cost associated with picking up and dropping off rental vehicles will be paid according to the DNR pay provision in the Washington State Wage & Equipment Rate Guide. 7) Reimburse the district/department for all approved supply expenses approved at the incident. The following guidelines apply: a. All supply expenses, with the exception of rental car fuel, require a resource order from the incident in order to be reimbursable. b. Itemized receipts must be included for all supply purchases in order to be eligible for reimbursement. 8) To pay all volunteers directly, unless otherwise requested in writing by the Chief. Volunteers will be paid for hours worked at the rates in the Washington State Wage & Equipment Rate Guide. 9) Reimburse district/department for Equipment Cost at the rates published in the Washington State Wage & Equipment Rate Guide. a. All equipment will be paid at the wet rate b. All equipment will be paid based on the resource order c. All equipment will be paid according to the DNR provisions in the Washington State Wage & Equipment Rate Guide. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40E41283-ACA7-4C9B-9FE2-91AF3D9BE270 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Resolution to accept the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: PW&U Presenter: K. Ketterer Phone: (360) 473-5334 SUMMARY: The Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan is a technical guidance document that outlines recommended projects and policies that address traffic and parking issues related to Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton’s operations. The plan includes over 30 recommended projects that the City and other agencies can implement over the next 20 years to address traffic and parking issues related to NBK-Bremerton. Passage of Resolution XXXX formally adopts the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan, and directs staff to incorporate the recommendations into future planning documents. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Report link: www.bremertonwa.gov/jctp FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): None STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Resolution XXXX to adopt the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/09/2021 A7 Page 1 of 2 Resolution Document Reference Rev. 01/2023 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, accepting the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan. WHEREAS, the City was awarded a $750,000 grant from the Department of Defense Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation to study the traffic and parking issues affecting both Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton and the City of Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the City underwent a 3-year study with input from stakeholders including the US Navy, Kitsap County, Kitsap Transit, Port of Bremerton, WSDOT, Suquamish Tribe, and Greater Kitsap Chamber of Commerce to evaluate existing and future traffic issues and develop a series of recommendations to address the impacts; and WHEREAS, the Community Sounding Board, composed of the stakeholders listed above, guided the study through 8 meetings and workshops held on 1/28/2021, 6/16/2021, 7/7/2021, 8/31/2021, 10/26/2021, 6/1/2022, 9/21/2022, and 5/17/2023; and WHEREAS, the study was guided by public input gathered at 4 Public Meetings on 2/9/2021, 12/6/2021, 10/12/2022, 11/3/2022; and WHEREAS, the study findings and recommendations were presented to Council on 6/22/2022, and 12/6/2023 as well as at the Public Works Committee meeting on 8/15/2023; and WHEREAS, the study findings and final recommendations were consolidated into a report titled the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan (JCTP); and WHEREAS, the JCTP includes projects and policies to address traffic and parking impacts on City residents while preserving access to Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the JCTP includes a variety of construction projects for the City to deliver, including major construction projects such as the Naval Avenue and 6th Street Road Diets; and WHEREAS, the JCTP includes a variety of other projects to be delivered by stakeholders including the US Navy, Kitsap Transit, WSDOT, Washington State Patrol; and WHEREAS, individual projects from the JCTP for the City to deliver will be incorporated into the 2024 update of the City’s Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, NOW THEREFORE, Page 2 of 2 Resolution Document Reference Rev. 01/2023 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan dated December, 2023 is hereby adopted by the City of Bremerton. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _____ day of __________________, 20____. JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: KYLIE J. FINNELL, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Resolution Rev. 01 2023.doc 12/6/23 Comment Review 1 Below are a few examples of comments that were received and our response:Comment Response Plan should be aligned with 2024 Comp Plan Update Completing this plan, which has a limited scope, will allow it to be incorporated into the Comp Plan Update SR 303 Study projects should be re-prioritized within the JCTP – move up prioritization of multi- modal projects Strategy is to leave the SR 303 Study whole and work to incorporate all of the plans with the Comp Plan Update No dollar figures for projects Cost estimates are included on the project one-pagers found in Appendix O of the plan Call to increase density in downtown and support transit JCTP Plan anticipates being forward compatible with changes that may occur with the Comp Plan Update Transit and active transportation improvements needed for outlying areas JCTP includes transit improvements and active transportation improvements for 5-minute walk-sheds around transit facilities; also will forward comment for the Comp Plan Next Steps Council Adoption and Beyond •Council to consider adoption of the plan at the 12/13 & 12/20 Council meetings •Adoption does not include zoning, code, or TIP changes •Adoption does not over-ride other planning documents •Gives us a blueprint for addressing issues, and can help us address new challenges as they arise or as conditions change •Strengthens grant applications and shows Council support for transformative projects such as the 6th Street re-channelization project. •Final report will inform Transportation Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update •Look for opportunities to implement plan elements 2 To the right you see Templafy taskbar with access to your content Are you offline? Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layout With Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan Council Meeting 12/6/2023 Agenda •Brief Overview of JCTP Purpose •Review of JCTP Outreach •Review of Findings and Analysis •Description of Livability Vision •JCTP Outcome –Preferred Alternative Overview •JCTP Report –Overview and Navigation •Next Steps 4 Project Overview•Bremerton has unique traffic and parking issues due to Naval Base Kitsap -Bremerton (NBK-BR), such as: •traffic surges at shift changes •limited parking both inside and outside fence line •older infrastructure that is car focused •forecasted population growth •City and NBK-BR are partnering through a DOD grant to create a plan that will address these challenges •$750,000 Project ($75k City, $675k DOD) 5 JCTP Purpose •Examine existing and future need for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR •Develop solutions to resolve deficits •Evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands •Develop a prioritized implementation plan 6 Community Feedback Future and Existing Conditions NBK –BR Access Needs JCTP Outreach Review 2020 -2021 Roadmap 7 Identifying needs and ideas Gathering and refining ideas Testing ideas and getting feedback JCTP Outreach Review 2022 –2023 Roadmap 8 Visioning Draft Preferred Alternative Final Preferred Alternative refinement, phasing, and report writing JCTP Findings and Analysis Significant Findings 9 •Population growth will increase pressure on existing infrastructure, decreasing Bremerton’s livability and degrading base accessibility •By 2050, peak hour traffic volumes will increase by over 30% •NBK-BR operations create traffic surges and congestion •60% of traffic coming into Bremerton during the peak period is attributed to NBK-BR •By 2050 there will be significant congestion at several locations in Bremerton •Number of intersections operating at LOS F doubles •2017 Parking Study confirmed large numbers of commuter vehicles are parking illegally in Downtown and in neighborhoods •As downtown redevelops, it is likely that parking will go away, pushing illegal parking further into outlying neighborhoods, if nothing changes JCTP Findings and Analysis Alternatives Analysis 10 Alternatives were organized around parking strategies so that the project team could understand how traffic volume and parking patterns impact the potential solutions. Alt 1 –Relocate Commuter Parking Alt 2 –Support Commuter Parking Alt 3 –Build Parking on Base (West Side) •Add parking at strategic locations outside of downtown •Fewer cars coming into downtown Bremerton •Transit supportive projects •Traffic volume increases with growth •Capacity projects •Traffic patterns stay consistent with current patterns •Traffic volume increases with growth •Capacity projects •Traffic patterns shift to west side of base 1 2 3 Livability Vision Establishing the Vision To assemble a preferred alternative, the project team sought guidance on the vision from the CSB and the City Council. A “Livability Vision” that addresses the need to maintain Base accessibility was selected to move forward. 11 Assume more cars coming into downtown in 2050 Assume fewer cars coming into downtown in 20501 2 3 Livability VisionCapacity Vision Livability Vision Definition and How it was Measured in Analysis 12 •Livability was included as an evaluation metric and were qualitatively evaluated for their ability to improve: •Multi-modal connectivity •Parking for businesses •Walkable housing options •Health (improving physical health and reducing carbon emissions) Livability is a sum of factors that add up to a community’s quality of life such as comfortable walking and bicycling, kids playing in the front yard, or simply sitting on the front porch enjoying home. (JCTP, ES -1) Livability Vision How Livability Vision is Applied in the Preferred Alternative 13 Prioritize safety and active transportation 17 of the 22 short-term projects are multi-modal or safety projects Focus on active transportation accessibility by considering the active transportation network Make getting around town by active modes easier and safer with projects like Naval Avenue and 6th Street re- channelization projects; mobility hub at Park Ave/4th St Focus on shifting commuter travel modes from single occupancy vehicle to transit to lower the number of cars coming into Bremerton – Transportation System Projects include park and rides, downtown shuttle, more and faster buses to NBK-BR and others Focus on shifting commuter travel modes from single occupancy vehicle to transit to lower the number of cars coming into Bremerton -Behavior Include policies and programs that are aimed at reducing barriers to transit use such as complicated Worker/Driver Bus reimbursements Rejected capacity centered vision, but some capacity are still called for because unmitigated congestion can lead to livability issues such as increased carbon emissions Rejected additional lanes on Burwell and Kitsap Way; included adaptive signals instead Reduce support for commuter parking in the downtown core and in neighborhoods No parking garages recommended off-base, parking policies that deter commuter parking in neighborhoods and in downtown JCTP Outcome Preferred Alternative Overview 14 Key projects include: •Re-channelization projects for Naval Avenue and 6th Street •Sidewalk improvements within the 10-minute walkshed of NBK-BR and 5-minute walksheds of transit facilities •Mobility hub at 4th and Park (bike parking, ride share and shuttle space) •Major investment into transit including both capital improvements like park & rides as well as system/operations expansions Recommended projects are mapped to help readers visualize the improvements. Find these maps in section 7 of the report on pages 7-6 to 7-8 JCTP Outcome Preferred Alternative Outreach 15 Generally, the Preferred Alternative received broad support. Below are a few examples of comments that were received and how we responded to those comments: Parking policy recommendations confusing Revised and simplified parking policies Concerns about park & ride safety Aligned park and ride projects with Kitsap Transit plans which focus on smaller mixed-use lots that are more active and less attractive targets for crime Need to ensure alignment with Kitsap Transit and Kitsap County plans Aligned transit projects with Kitsap Transit Long Range Plans and removed recommendations for large park and ride garages in the County Bike path on 1st Street not included Added 1st Street Shared Use Path as a stand-alone project Concerns about capacity loss on Naval and 6th Street Performed added analysis to understand queuing potential during the AM and considered phasing of support projects (like adaptive signals) JCTP Report Navigation 16 www.bremertonwa.gov/jctp Link to report Link to Appendices JCTP Report Overview The JCTP Report includes: •Executive Summary (ES-1) •Public Outreach (3-1) •Existing Conditions, Future Conditions (4-1, 5-1) •Alternatives Process (6-1) •Preferred Alternative and Phasing (7-1) •Detailed 1-pagers for each recommended project (Appendix O) 17 Next Steps Council Adoption and Beyond •Council to consider adoption of the plan at the 12/13 & 12/20 Council meetings •Adoption does not include zoning, code, or TIP changes •Adoption does not over-ride other planning documents •Gives us a blueprint for addressing issues, and can help us address new challenges as they arise or as conditions change •Strengthens grant applications and shows Council support for transformative projects such as the 6th Street re-channelization project. •Final report will inform Transportation Element of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update •Look for opportunities to implement plan elements 18 More Information 19 Katie Ketterer City of Bremerton Project Manager 360-473-5334 Katie.Ketterer@ci.bremerton.wa.us www.bremertonwa.gov/jctp DECEMBER 2023 Prepared by Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Prepared for CITY OF BREMERTON i CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Acknowledgments The following agencies and organizations participated in the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan. The study team would like to acknowledge and thank everyone involved. Project Management Team • Katie Ketterer – City of Bremerton • Tom Knuckey – City of Bremerton • Shane Weber – City of Bremerton Community Sounding Board • City of Bremerton • Kitsap County • Greater Kitsap Chamber of Commerce • Kitsap Transit • Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton • Puget Sound Naval Shipyard • Port of Bremerton • Washington State Department of Transportation Consultant Team • Parametrix – Prime Consultant • Fehr & Peers – Travel Demand Modeling and Active Transportation • Framework – Parking • PRR – Public Involvement • Community Attributes Inc – Economic Analysis This study was prepared under contract with the City of Bremerton, Washington, with financial support from the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (formerly Office of Economic Adjustment), Department of Defense. The Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan content reflects the views of the City of Bremerton and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation. ii CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Executive Summary .........................................................................ES-1 What is the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1 Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2 Who shaped the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan? ES-3 The Plan .....................................................................................ES-4 1. Introduction ...............................................................................1-1 Study Purpose and Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Study Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Schedule .....................................................................................1-1 2. Study Area Profile..........................................................................2-1 Study Area ....................................................................................2-1 Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 3. Public and Agency Involvement Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1 Community Sounding Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Community Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 4. Existing Conditions Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1 Methods and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Mode Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Parking .......................................................................................4-1 Traffic Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 Transit .......................................................................................4-13 Active Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17 Safety .......................................................................................4-22 Economics ...................................................................................4-25 5. Future No Build Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1 Future No Build Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 Future No Build Traffic Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Future No Build Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 Future No Build Active Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 Future No Build Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 6. Alternative Development and Screening Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1 Screening Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 Develop Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 First Level Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 iii CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Proposed Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Second Level Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6 Cost-Benefit Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 Parking Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 7. Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-1 Preliminary Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Final Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 8. Implementation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-1 Potential Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5 9. Next Steps..................................................................................9-1 Ongoing Study Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 Ongoing Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 Future Upcoming Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2 10. References ..............................................................................10-1 Appendices Appendix A. Project Inventory Appendix B. Community Sounding Board Meeting Presentations Appendix C. Community Engagement Summary Appendix D. Methods and Assumptions Memo Appendix E. Existing and Future No Build Traffic Analysis Results Appendix F. Existing Economic Assessment Appendix G. Future No Build Forecasting Memo Appendix H. Screening and Evaluation Methodology Memo Appendix I. First Level Screening Results Appendix J. Second Level Screening Build Alternatives Appendix K. Second Level Screening Results Appendix L. Cost-Benefit Analysis Appendix M. Preferred Alternative Analysis Results Appendix N. Preferred Alternative Phasing Matrix Appendix O. Project One-Pagers List of Figures Legend for Figure ES-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4 Figure ES-1. Preferred Alternative Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5 Figure 1-1. Project Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 Figure 2-1. Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Figure 2-2. NBK-BR Gate Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 Figure 4-1. NBK-BR Mode Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Figure 4-2. Kitsap County Mode Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 iv CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Figure 4-3. On-Street Parking Occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Figure 4-4. Off-Street Parking Occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Figure 4-5. Existing Vehicle Volume Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 Figure 4-6. Existing Level of Service – AM Peak Hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9 Figure 4-7. Existing Level of Service – PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 Figure 4-8. Existing Travel Times – AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 Figure 4-9. Existing Travel Times – PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 Figure 4-10. Fixed-Route Bus Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 Figure 4-11. Worker/Driver Bus Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16 Figure 4-12. Existing Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19 Figure 4-13. Existing Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20 Figure 4-14. Existing Pedestrian Volumes at NBK-BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 Figure 4-15. Collisions (2014–2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23 Figure 4-16. Crash Severity (2014–2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 Figure 4-17. Study Area Median Household Income (2015–2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26 Figure 4-18. City of Bremerton Employment (2006–2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26 Figure 4-19. Study Area Employment Share by Industry (2006, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27 Figure 4-20. Study Area Current Property Classes (2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28 Figure 5-1. Year 2050 No Build Vehicle Volume Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 Figure 5-2. Year 2050 No Build Level of Service – AM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 Figure 5-3. Year 2050 No Build Level of Service – PM Peak Hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7 Figure 5-4. Year 2050 No Build Travel Times – AM Peak Hour. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8 Figure 5-5. Year 2050 No Build Travel Times – PM Peak Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 Figure 6-1. Second Level Screening Results Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 Figure 7-1. Preferred Alternative Analysis Results Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 Figure 7-2. Preferred Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 Figure 7-2. Preferred Alternative (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 Figure 7-2. Preferred Alternative (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 List of Tables Table 3-1. Community Sounding Board Meeting Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 Table 4-1. Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Results – Exceeding LOS Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 Table 5-1. Study Area Household and Employment Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 Table 5-2. Year 2050 No Build Traffic Operations Results – Exceeding LOS Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 Table 6-1. Improvements Included in All Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 Table 8-1. Preferred Alternative Project Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3 Table 8-2. Potential Funding Sources for JCTP Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5 v CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Acronyms and Abbreviations ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AWSC all-way stop-controlled BAT business access transit BC Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton capital project BMC Bremerton Municipal Code BP Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton policy project CC City of Bremerton capital project CP City of Bremerton policy project City City of Bremerton County Kitsap County CSB Community Sounding Board CTR commute trip reduction DOD Department of Defense EIS Environmental Impact Statement GP general purpose HOV high-occupancy vehicle IMF Intermediate Maintenance Facility JCTP Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KC Kitsap Transit capital project KP Kitsap Transit policy project LOS level of service NBK-BR Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton P&R park and ride PSNS Puget Sound Naval Shipyard PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council RAB roundabout SIOP Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program SR State Route TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMA transportation management association TSP transit signal priority TWSC two-way stop-controlled UGA urban growth area v/c volume-to-capacity ratio WC Washington State capital project WP Washington State policy project WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan ES-1 Executive Summary The City of Bremerton (City) and Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton (NBK-BR) have partnered to conduct a comprehensive commuter traffic plan. The goal of the study, formally called the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan (JCTP), is to create a responsive and actionable plan to examine existing and future needs for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR and ensure that Bremerton’s growth will not impede NBK-BR missions, which are critical to our Nation’s military readiness. The plan defines solutions to improve multimodal mobility, outline parking strategies, and enhance Bremerton’s livability. Livability is a sum of factors that add up to a community’s quality of life such as comfortable walking and bicycling, kids playing in the front yard, or simply sitting on the front porch enjoying home. Success of this plan will ensure NBK-BR meets its missions for national defense while supporting Bremerton’s long-range growth needs. The goals of the study are as follows: • Examine and define existing and future needs for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR. • Develop solutions to resolve deficits. • Evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands. • Develop a prioritized implementation plan. What is the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan? This plan documents the specific purpose and need for improvements, how alternatives were developed, how the range of reasonable alternatives were screened, how tension between NBK-BR base accessibility and City livability goals was considered, and how the Preferred Alternative was identified. It builds on background planning, studies, parking inventories, and other ongoing efforts, including those prepared by the City, Kitsap Transit, NBK- BR, Kitsap County, and other regional agencies, as well as supplemental data collected by the study team. Additionally, the region has assets such as a ferry system, a worker/driver bus program, a transportation center adjacent to the east end of NBK-BR, and a strong regional planning council (Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council) that, with a comprehensive cross-agency plan, can be leveraged to produce capital and operational improvements to the transportation network. This final JCTP identifies short-, mid-, and long-term capital and operational improvements prioritized based on metrics determined during the study that are clear, useful, and actionable. The study team used an approach similar to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Practical Solutions approach to develop solutions that meet the study goals at the right level while working toward a Preferred Alternative. ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PARKING TRANSIT TRAFFIC Accessibility Stop Locations Stop Amenities Park & Rides Sidewalk Bike Lanes Buers Signage Crossings Availability Signs Internet AccessLIVABILITY LIVABILITY L I VABI LI TY LIVABILITY LIVABILITY LIVABILITY LIVABILITY LIVABILITY BalancedMultimodalSolution CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan ES-2 Study Approach IDENTIFY EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION MODES SERVING NBK-BR The study team reviewed previous studies to outline key findings for each transportation mode, coordinated with City staff on the existing and future needs, conducted a workshop with a technical advisory group to refine and finalize existing and future needs, and hosted an open house to gather public comments and input on the existing and future needs. Significant findings included: • During the peak period, 60% of traffic coming into Downtown Bremerton is attributed to NBK- BR and 80% of NBK-BR employees commute by driving alone or in a shared vehicle, with a total of 18,500 people traveling to NBK-BR by privately owned vehicles during the AM peak period. • Over 6,300 NBK-BR commuter vehicles park outside of the gates during the peak period, and over 10,000 employees enter the NBK-BR pedestrian gates each day. • NBK-BR has an on-installation parking deficit on the order of 7,075 vehicles, and there is insufficient parking in the City of Bremerton to address the deficit. A parking study conducted by the City (City of Bremerton 2017) confirmed that large numbers of commuter vehicles park illegally in Downtown and in neighborhoods. • Vehicle queues at NBK-BR entry gates sometimes cause back-ups on City streets. Additionally, there are multiple locations where queues exceed available storage capacity. Long queues block business driveway access, increase travel times for both general-purpose (GP) traffic and transit, and can lead to cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. • Buses use the same facilities as GP traffic and have limited frequency, which does not encourage transit use. • Existing park and rides in West Bremerton and Silverdale do not have adequate capacity and are not able to meet the transit demand in these locations. • Existing active transportation facilities and connectivity are poor, can contribute to perceived safety concerns, and do not encourage walking or bicycling to and within Downtown. DEVELOP SOLUTIONS TO RESOLVE DEFICITS The study team reviewed the existing and future needs and developed a range of improvements to address the needs in a variety of ways. Over 200 solutions to resolve deficits were developed based on input from Community Sounding Board (CSB) meetings, the public, other defense communities that have similar traffic issues, staff, and subject matter experts. Solutions that passed an initial screening were organized into Build Alternatives for further evaluation. EVALUATE OPTIONS TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING DEMANDS The study team conducted a workshop to develop and refine Build Alternatives to meet identified needs and developed screening and scoring metrics to evaluate alternative effectiveness. The team also developed conceptual layouts and preliminary cost estimates to determine feasibility and understand impacts and benefits. The three Build Alternatives evaluated were: Support Parking Alternative This alternative assumes the City continues to pursue population and employment growth and supports the current parking system used today. This alternative would result in higher levels of traffic coming into Downtown, which would be accompanied by roadway capacity improvements needed to accommodate that growth. Relocate Parking Alternative This alternative assumes a larger portion of commuters would use transit to access Downtown Bremerton and NBK-BR. This alternative includes new or expanded park and ride facilities, repurposing City parking areas to be mixed use, establishing new parking policies, and increasing parking enforcement. This alternative would result in lower levels of GP traffic coming into Downtown and would be accompanied by transit improvements and livability improvements that take advantage of the decreased traffic demand. Add Base Parking Alternative This alternative assumes that all NBK-BR employees would have access to current or new parking on base. This alternative includes expanded parking, a CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan ES-3 shuttle to transport employees from on-installation parking to their work areas, and increased parking enforcement Downtown to ensure the on- installation parking is used. This alternative would result in a change in travel patterns Downtown from current local parking to on-installation parking near the Charleston gate and would be accompanied by roadway capacity improvements in the City. Downtown surface parking owned by the City could be re-purposed to mixed-use development. SELECT A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Figure 6-1 summarizes the screening results of the three Build Alternatives. The analysis revealed that none of the Build Alternatives would provide benefit for all of the evaluation metrics, and that there was tension between base accessibility and livability. All three Build Alternatives would provide benefit for safety. The Add Base Parking Alternative would provide the most benefit for mobility and base accessibility but would only provide some benefit for livability and no benefit to parking. Meanwhile, the Relocate Parking Alternative would provide the most benefit to parking and livability but would only provide some benefit to mobility and base accessibility. The study team sought guidance from the CSB and the City Council to establish a vision for the Preferred Alternative. Both the CSB and the City Council strongly favored outcomes that improve the livability of the City. The alternative with the best livability outcomes was the Relocate Parking Alternative, and this alternative served as the basis for the Preferred Alternative. DEVELOP A PRIORITIZED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Using the Preferred Alternative as a long-range vision, the study team developed a list of projects and other actions to meet the program goals. The recommendations include several early actions that can be expedited to provide benefit to the public as soon as possible. More information on the detailed methods and outcome from these steps can be found in the body of this report. Who shaped the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan? The JCTP was led by the City and advised by a CSB composed of leadership representatives and subject matter experts from affected agencies and governments. This group was committed to a strong ongoing partnership and to fostering a regional perspective and approach to development of the JCTP. Community stakeholder engagement was solicited throughout the plan’s development and through diverse communication channels. The study team conducted a public information survey and hosted several virtual open houses that offered accessible options to introduce the study to community members when in-person gatherings were restricted and discouraged due to COVID-19. Feedback from Bremerton residents was heavily considered when developing the vision of livability for Bremerton, while NBK-BR commuters provided valuable insight into commuter behavior and barriers to transit and active transportation use. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan ES-4 The Plan The plan recommends projects that are divided into phases based on the type of project (capital or policy-based) and the agency that has the ownership or ability to lead the project. Recommended projects and project phasing include: • Ongoing and Early Actions includes efforts or projects that are already underway and should continue, including commuter education, NBK-BR gate management, teleworking, implementation of recommendations from the City of Bremerton Parking Study (City of Bremerton 2017), improved lighting, and policies to encourage density in Downtown. • Short-Term Projects (0 to 6 years) includes capital projects that improve the livability of Bremerton, address immediate capacity and safety issues, and reduce barriers for residents and commuters accessing NBK-BR by active transportation modes. Also included are policy and operations projects that support and improve transit accessibility; these projects set the groundwork for large capital investments in transit infrastructure recommended in the mid- term years. • Mid-Term Projects (6 to 20 years) includes major capital investments in transit infrastructure that support a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to mass transit. These investments are consistent with Kitsap Transit’s Long Range Plan and the region’s plans for growth and land use (PSRC 2020). The benefit of these investments is to develop a reliable transit system that connects people within and between communities. • Long-Term Projects (20+ years) includes projects with recognized benefits to Bremerton livability and to NBK-BR accessibility, but that may take longer to complete. For example, completing the implementation of the SR 303 Corridor Study is included as a long-term project. The SR 303 Corridor Study includes a suite of phased improvements that should be implemented as recommended by that study, however the full implementation of all recommendations will be completed over the long term. A summary of the proposed projects and expected benefits of the Preferred Alternative are shown in Figure ES-1. More detailed information about the recommended projects and next steps can be found in sections 7 and 8 of this document. Additionally, one-page summaries of each project can be found in Appendix O.PROJECT LEGENDRoadway improvement, intersection improvement, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), roundabout NBK-BR improvement, NBK-BR gate improvement Bus, ferry, carpool, park and ride, Transportation Management Active transportation improvement, pedestrian improvement, bicycle improvement Parking Legend for Figure ES-1 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan ES-5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT BENEFITS Safety Multimodal Livability Base Accessibility Short-Term Projects (0 to 6 years) C40 Naval Ave road re-channelization  C24 6th St road re-channelization  AT15 Shared-use path on 1st St  AT5 Sidewalk improvements near NBK-BR  C20 All-way pedestrian phases along Burwell St  C35 Adaptive signal timing  C38 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan projects  AT48 Bicycle facilities on Shorewood Dr  C31 Pedestrian/bicycle improvements near park and rides  AT27 Sidewalk improvements west of Charleston Blvd  AT1 Support redevelopment of Gateway Park and Ride  AT19 Covered bike parking near NBK-BR  B3 Decrease queuing at NBK-BR gates in the morning  B18 Open Montgomery gate during both peak hours  C14 Study new off-ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304  CTR1 NBK-BR telework options  CTR3 Improve reimbursement for Worker/ Driver Bus program  CTR11 Improve technology for Worker/Driver Bus program  CTR12 Study increased foot-ferry capacity for Port Orchard  CTR4 Reduced bus fares  O6 Enforcement of HOV lanes  AT14 Support planning efforts for SR 3 in Gorst  Figure ES-1. Preferred Alternative Summary Note: PC - New/Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B: Projects on Base, T - Transit Service/Frequency, AT - Active Transportation, PM - Parking Management/Policy, CTR - Programs/Technologies/Incentives to Encourage Mode Shift, O - Other CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan ES-6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT BENEFITS Safety Multimodal Livability Base Accessibility Mid-Term Projects (6 to 20 years) AT2 Mobility hub at Park Ave/4th St  AT55 Bike lane on Park Ave  C26 Traffic Management Center  C41 Roundabout at Naval Ave/6th St  PM15 Paid on-street parking downtown  PM2 Permit-only parking in residential areas  PC6 Silverdale and West Bremerton Park and Rides  PC4 Projects for reliable non-auto travel modes  PC3 PSIC and South Kitsap Park and Rides  T8 Shuttle service to downtown  T6 More and faster buses to NBK-BR  PM3 Transportation Management Association  C1 Improve SR 3/Kitsap Way interchange  C2 Roundabouts at SR 3/W Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange  Long-Term Projects (20+ years) C29 SR 303 Corridor Study projects  B7 New or improved parking on NBK-BR installation  Figure ES-1. Preferred Alternative Summary (continued) Note: PC - New/Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B: Projects on Base, T - Transit Service/Frequency, AT - Active Transportation, PM - Parking Management/Policy, CTR - Programs/Technologies/Incentives to Encourage Mode Shift, O - Other INTRODUCTION1. INTRODUCTION CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 1-1 1. Introduction Study Purpose and Background The goal of this study is to create a responsive and actionable plan to examine existing and future needs for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR and ensure that Bremerton’s growth will not impede NBK- BR missions, which are critical to our Nation’s military readiness. The plan defines solutions to improve multimodal mobility, outline parking strategies, and enhance Bremerton’s livability. Livability is a sum of factors that add up to a community’s quality of life such as comfortable walking, bicycling, kids playing in the front yards, or simply sitting on the front porch enjoying home. Success of this plan will ensure NBK-BR meets its missions for national defense while supporting Bremerton’s long-range growth needs. This plan documents the specific purpose and need for improvements, how alternatives were developed, how the range of reasonable alternatives were screened, how tension between NBK-BR base accessibility and City livability goals was considered, and how a Preferred Alternative was identified. It builds on background planning, studies, parking inventories, and other ongoing efforts, including those prepared by the City, Kitsap Transit, NBK-BR, Kitsap County, and other regional agencies, as well as supplemental data collected by the study team. This final JCTP identifies short-, mid-, and long-term capital and operational improvements prioritized based on metrics determined during the study that are clear, useful, and actionable. Study Funding The City of Bremerton was awarded a Department of Defense (DOD) Office of Economic Adjustment grant to undertake a comprehensive commuter traffic plan. The award was the culmination of an effort, led by Mayor Wheeler, that demonstrates the Navy’s common interest with the City to resolve traffic and parking conflicts. $675,000 in Department of Defense funds and $75,000 of City funds were committed to conduct this commuter transportation study. Schedule The JCTP study was kicked off in November 2020. The schedule for the study process with the key milestones is shown in Figure 1-1. Community members were engaged as part of CSB meetings that were scheduled to ensure that public input was received at each of the study decision points. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 1-2 CSB O Project Management Milestones Project Initiation Draft JCTP Final JCTP Technical Tasks Data Collection and Public Survey Outline Issues Preliminary Alternatives Preliminary Screening Preferred Alternative Selection Cost Estimates Phasing Plans Documentation Community Engagement City Council Community Sounding Board Community Open House Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Preliminary Design Preliminary Cost Estimates On-Going Documentation Supports Final Report Project Milestone Community Sounding Board Meeting Open House C City Council W Workshops CSB 1 CSB 2W O 1 C 1 W CSB 3 O 2 CSB 4 C 2 CSB 5 CSB 6 O 3 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 C3 End Date 12/2023 Figure 1-1. Project Schedule 2. STUDY AREA PROFILE CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 2-1 2. Study Area Profile Study Area The study area for this project is the area within the City of Bremerton limits as well as the City urban growth area (UGA). The study area is shown in Figure 2-1. Areas outside the City, such as Port Orchard, were included in some analyses as well. The key corridors that provide access to Downtown Bremerton and NBK-BR are State Route (SR) 303 and SR 3 to the north, Charleston Boulevard (SR 304) to the south, and Kitsap Way, 11th Street, 6th Street, and Burwell Street (SR 304) within Downtown. City of Bremerton The City of Bremerton is located along Sinclair Inlet on the eastern half of central Kitsap County. With a land area of approximately 28 square miles and a population of 44,640, Bremerton is the largest city in Kitsap County. The City has a well-established urban character and good connections to the rest of the region, including ferry service to downtown Seattle. NBK-BR resides in the urban context of Downtown Bremerton. The Downtown core has experienced significant revitalization, guided by the City’s Downtown Regional Center Subarea Plan and anchored by the ferry terminal and Bremerton Transportation Center. The City has a variety of diverse residential and commercial neighborhoods near NBK-BR. The City is committed to targeted growth within this area, including increasing the number of housing units and improving livability. An example of improved livability is a location where people can feel comfortable walking, bicycling, playing with their kids in the front yard, or simply sitting on their front porch enjoying their home. This type of livability is at odds with the current parking situation that encourages people who commute from out of town to drive through neighborhoods and park in front of people’s homes. Downtown Bremerton is designated as a Regional Growth Center by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050, and the City has experienced increased development along the perimeter of NBK-BR. Data recently released by PSRC revealed that Bremerton’s population grows each day by over 17,000 due to the daily influx of workers. This daily increase of 44 percent results in traffic congestion and parking conflicts that negatively impact the City on a variety of levels, including economic viability, quality of life, and safety. NBK-BR and the City grew together over the last century, with residential neighborhoods directly abutting NBK-BR’s fence line. Much has been done over the past several decades to help ease the encroachment of urban development on NBK-BR, including a joint land use study, studies of SR 3 and SR 16, improvements to SR 304, various pedestrian safety improvements, planning and development policies that protect NBK-BR’s mission, a security buffer on the east side of the installment that is maintained by the City as a park, and commuter trip reduction measures managed by Kitsap Transit and NBK-BR. However, traffic congestion and parking conflicts continue to put pressures on military operations and quality of life for civilians and military personnel. Bremerton’s economy and livelihood are heavily influenced by NBK-BR and the federal government’s investment in operations at the facility. In 2018, nearly 60 percent of the jobs in Bremerton were categorized as government jobs. A substantial portion of private sector jobs are also related to, or dependent upon, NBK-BR. This highlights the importance of the strong cooperative relationship that has been developed between the City of Bremerton and NBK-BR to find ways to improve operations, connectivity, livability, and economic vitality for the people who live and work in the area. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 2-2 SE Sedgwick Rd SE Mile Hill DR SW Bay S t Bay StBurwell St Warren AveWheaton WayJOINT COMPATIBILITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Study Area Map City Boundary City of Bremerton Urban Growth Area Gorst Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Puget Sound Industrial Center (PSIC) - Bremerton Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Gold Mountain Golf Club Sinclair I nl et Dyes Inlet Port Orchard Charleston Blvd0 31½ Miles Gorst Bremerton PSIC - Bremerton Bremerton National Airport N 303 310 3 3 16 160 166 3 Figure 2-1. Study Area CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 2-3 Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR is a Navy installation that can homeport aircraft carriers and submarines and its major tenant command is Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS & IMF). NBK-BR is located on the north side of the Sinclair Inlet within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Bremerton. NBK-BR encompasses approximately 400 acres of land, 400 acres of submerged marine Right to Use lands, 3.4 miles of shoreline, 382 buildings, and six dry docks for wet or dry berthing of all sizes and classes of vessels (Joint Land Use Study, Kitsap County 2015). NBK-BR is one of Washington State’s largest industrial installations. The eastern portion of NBK-BR is a fenced, high- security area known as the Controlled Industrial Area. PSNS & IMF is the Navy’s primary provider for the maintenance, repair, modernization, inactivation, and recycling of ships, submarines, and aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet. PSNS & IMF is the only Navy shipyard on the west coast with a dry dock that can accommodate the large size of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for repair and maintenance. When two aircraft carriers are homeported, NBK-BR can have approximately 23,000 daily employees who travel to Downtown Bremerton, including civilians, active duty, sailors, and contractors. NBK-BR is accessed by seven external gates, as shown in Figure 2-2. The Missouri and Montgomery gates on the west side are open to both vehicles and pedestrians but are currently predominantly accessed by vehicles. The Charleston and Naval gates on the west side and Main (Bremerton) gate on the east side are accessed by both vehicles and pedestrians. The State Street and Burwell gates on the northeast side are accessed by pedestrians only. The Farragut and Wycoff gates provide access to the Controlled Industrial Area from inside NBK-BR. During the SR 303 Corridor study (City of Bremerton 2021), it was determined that nearly 74 percent of the people who work in Bremerton live outside of the City limits. In 2019, over 52 percent of people working in the City, including many Bremerton residents, were employed in government jobs. Implementing livability improvements would benefit not only Bremerton residents who work at NBK-BR, but everyone who works in Bremerton. Previous Studies The study team collected previous studies to help identify existing and future conditions for the study area. The following studies were previously completed in the study area and were considered by the study team: • Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (City of Bremerton 2007) • Puget Sound Industrial Center – Bremerton Subarea Plan (City of Bremerton 2012) • City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan (City of Bremerton 2016a) • City of Bremerton Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Transition Plan (City of Bremerton 2016b) • City of Bremerton Parking Study (City of Bremerton 2017) • Bremerton Citywide Transportation Concurrency Review (City of Bremerton 2020a) • SR 303 Corridor Study (City of Bremerton 2021) • Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan (City of Bremerton 2020b) • Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan (City of Bremerton 2022) • Kitsap County Non-Motorized Facility Plan (Kitsap County 2018) • Joint Land Use Study Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Magazine Indian Island (Kitsap County 2015) • Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan (Kitsap County 2016a) • Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan 2016–2036 (Kitsap Transit 2016b) • Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan 2022–2044 (Kitsap Transit 2022) • Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety Study NBK Bremerton (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest 2013) • Bremerton Economic Development Study (WSDOT 2012) • SR 16, Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3, Congestion Study (WSDOT 2018) • Washington State Ferries 2040 Long Range Plan (WSDOT 2019) CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 2-4 Additional studies or projects in the study area that were completed during the study timeframe or will be in the near future: • City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan 2024 • HSIP III – Kitsap Way and Warren Avenue Traffic Signal and Multimodal Safety Project • East 11th and Perry Avenue Complete Streets Improvement Project • Washington Avenue and 11th Roundabout These studies helped the team organize data collection, identify existing and future needs, and develop possible solutions for the study area. These studies were reviewed for any identified issues and needs as well as proposed improvements within the study area. Many studies identified overall existing conditions and agency goals but did not identify specific issues or needs relevant to the JCTP planning effort. The proposed improvements identified in each study were documented, categorized, and mapped in a project inventory, which is included in Appendix A. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 2-5 Naval Farragut State Street Burwell Wycoff Montgomery Charleston Main Missouri Naval Farragut State Street Burwell Wycoff Montgomery Charleston Main Missouri Figure 2-2. NBK-BR Gate Locations Source: Joint Land Use Study (Kitsap County 2015) 3. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT PROCESS CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 3-1 3. Public and Agency Involvement Process Community Sounding Board The JCTP was led by the City and advised by the CSB, composed of leadership representatives from affected agencies and governments. This group was committed to a strong ongoing partnership and fostering a regional perspective and approach to the development of the JCTP. The following study partners provided ongoing assistance to the study team and participated in six CSB meetings between January 2021 and May 2023. Additional agency representatives participated in one or both of the workshops in summer 2021 or in CSB meeting #4. Project Management Team • Katie Ketterer – City of Bremerton • Tom Knuckey – City of Bremerton • Shane Weber – City of Bremerton Community Sounding Board • Kevin Gorman – Bremerton City Council • Michael Goodnow – Bremerton City Council • David Emmons – Bremerton Chamber of Commerce • Denise Frey – Greater Kitsap Chamber of Commerce • Garrett Jackson – City of Bremerton • Mayor Greg Wheeler – City of Bremerton • Melinda Monroe – City of Bremerton • Vicki Grover – City of Bremerton • David Forte – Kitsap County • Melissa Mohr – Kitsap County • Ed Coviello – Kitsap Transit • Allison Satter – NBK-BR • Nicole Leaptrot-Figueras – NBK-BR • Sara Oliveira – NBK-BR • Fred Salisbury – Port of Bremerton • George Mazur –WSDOT • Matthew Pahs – WSDOT • Pamela Vasudeva – WSDOT Workshop Attendees • Sara Felty – City of Bremerton Police • Steffani Lillie – Kitsap Transit • Michael Dobling – NBK-BR • James Cook – PSNS • Para Kan – PSNS CSB Meeting #4 Special Attendees • Kate Milward – City of Bremerton • Ned Lever – City of Bremerton • Charlotte Garrido – Kitsap County • John Clauson – Kitsap Transit • Captain Richard Massie – NBK-BR • Rick Tift – PSNS • James Cook – PSNS • Para Kan – PSNS The JCTP CSB was kicked off in January 2021. The schedule for the CSB meetings and the topics discussed are shown in Table 3-1. These meeting dates were scheduled to ensure that public input was received at each of the study decision points. CSB meetings were used to gather information from key representatives from various interested agencies, organizations, and jurisdictions. Input was used to guide decisions at key milestones. The presentations from each CSB meeting are included in Appendix B. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 3-2 Table 3-1. Community Sounding Board Meeting Schedule MEETING DATE MEETING TOPICS CSB Meeting #1 January 28, 2021 Project overview and goals, community engagement, discuss early project ideas Workshop #1 June 16, 2021 Public information survey results, baseline conditions analysis and identified needs, modal breakout rooms to brainstorm improvements CSB Meeting #2 July 7, 2021 Public information survey results, baseline conditions analysis and identified needs, preliminary Build Alternatives, screening approach Workshop #2 August 13, 2021 First Level Screening results and draft Build Alternatives CSB Meeting #3 October 26, 2021 Build Alternatives and Second Level Screening results CSB Meeting #4 June 1, 2022 Discussion of two future visions: Livability Centered Vision or Capacity Centered Vision Note: This meeting included an expanded invitation list. The special attendees are listed above. CSB Meeting #5 September 21, 2022 Preferred Alternative projects and screening results CSB Meeting #6 May 17, 2023 Updated Preferred Alternative projects and project phasing Community Engagement JCTP involved community stakeholder engagement through several communications channels. Prior to the beginning of the study, a community engagement plan was developed to outline how public input through equitable outreach would support the study findings. The community engagement plan included a preliminary list of CSB members, a review of local demographics, a list of outreach strategies, and key communication milestones. More detailed information on the outcomes of the community engagement for this study is available in the Community Engagement Summary in Appendix C. Community engagement was conducted through these open houses and events: • Public Information Survey: February 3 to February 28, 2021 • Online Open House: February 9, 2021 • Online Open House: December 6, 2021 • Online Open House: October 11, 2022 • 6th Street Road Re-channelization Public Meeting: November 3, 2022 Demographics and Accessibility Demographic information, including data related to housing, vehicle access, veteran status, race and ethnicity, age, income, disabilities, language, and internet access was collected to determine how to appropriately engage the community. The total population of the study area is 51,100. Here are the key findings from the demographic evaluation: • 57 percent of households in Bremerton rent, and 43 percent live in housing they own. • 14 percent of Bremerton households do not have a vehicle and are likely transit-dependent— much higher than the 5 percent of households across the County without a vehicle. • 6 percent identify as African American or Black, twice the percentage compared with all of Kitsap County. 11 percent identify as Hispanic or Latino. • 37 percent of the population is at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, compared with 21 percent of the total Kitsap County population. • 90 percent of the population of Bremerton speaks only English, 4 percent speak Spanish, and 3 percent speak Tagalog (including Filipino). CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 3-3 Public Information Survey The City is committed to serving the needs of everyone in the City and ensuring all community members have a meaningful opportunity to participate in City processes and decisions. The City has a Title VI plan that outlines when project materials should be translated. For this project, translation services for all materials and meetings were available upon request. In an effort to reach as many people as possible, the following strategies were used: • Include a language block on project materials and a project website for all language groups that exceed 3 percent within the City, including Spanish and Tagalog. This language block will include a sentence to describe the project and the materials so that people who use the language understand what they are looking for. • Upon request, provide interpretation for Spanish and Tagalog and offer interpretation services on request for other languages, including American Sign Language, for all public meetings, including virtual meetings. • Upon request, provide real-time closed captioning for all virtual public meetings. • Encourage broad participation in public meetings and outreach opportunities by advertising on social media pages and through collaboration with community-based organizations. • Distribute flyers and electronic notices to public libraries, community centers, neighborhood service centers, and other community gathering places. The public information survey was conducted from February 3 to February 28, 2021. Survey topics included trip origins and destinations, trip frequency, trip purposes, mode choice, impact of COVID-19 on travel behavior, barriers that would influence travel mode after COVID-19, ideas on ways to improve travel in Bremerton, and standard respondent demographics. Survey respondents represented a range of genders, ages, incomes, races, ethnicities, and locations in the Bremerton area. A total of 557 people completed the survey. Key findings for travel pre-COVID, transit use, and recommended improvements included the following: • Most respondents (85 percent) traveled for work, but many also traveled for non-commute trips, such as food or drink, errands, and social or recreational activities. • Most respondents (88 percent) traveled to or within Bremerton, typically during peak hours. • A majority (64 percent) drove alone. Few used transit, such as bus (8 percent) or ferry (7 percent to 8 percent), or other alternatives to single- occupancy vehicles, such as walking (5 percent from home to workplace, 11 percent as part of commute), carpooling (10 percent), Worker/ Driver Bus program (10 percent), or bicycling (7 percent). • According to respondents, the top barriers to using transit were “riding the bus is inconvenient or takes too long” (52 percent), “I like the convenience of having my car” (47 percent), and “I have to make stops on my way to/from work” (36 percent). • According to respondents, the most important projects to improve travel in Bremerton were roadway capacity (adding lanes – 53 percent), NBK-BR access (get through the gates more quickly – 43 percent), active travel (bicycle and pedestrian improvements – 34 percent), and roadway efficiency (signal timing, signal coordination – 29 percent). The study team used this information to start outlining various improvements that would address the barriers for improved travel. The study team needed to consider the public input while balancing the City goals to improve livability and NBK-BR’s need to maintain mission ready accessibility to the Base. Virtual Open Houses The study team held three virtual open houses that offered an accessible way for the City to introduce the JCTP study to community members when in- person gatherings were restricted and discouraged due to COVID-19. The study team also held a public CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 3-4 meeting specifically for the 6th Street Road Re- channelization on November 3, 2022. The meetings were interactive, allowing attendees to view a presentation and leave comments through either the comment box or verbally during the question-and- answer portion of the meeting. • Open House #1: The objectives were to introduce the study and gather input about the existing and future conditions and opportunities for improvements. Key themes from the participant questions and comments were concerns about pedestrian safety and traffic issues in the Gorst area, traffic congestion along SR 304 and SR 3, the impact of the pandemic on the study approach, and adding more affordable parking Downtown. • Open House #2: The objectives were to share the project goals and scheduled updates, report findings from the public information survey, and share early findings of the project alternative analysis. Key themes from the participant questions were about bicycle facilities and storage near NBK-BR, private developers for parking garages Downtown, and shuttles in Downtown to transport people to NBK-BR. • Open House #3: The objectives were to share the evaluation process that led to the preliminary Preferred Alternative and the projects included in the preliminary Preferred Alternative. Key themes from the participant questions were about the parking management zone, intersection capacity projects, project phasing, and support and input on bicycle facilities. • 6th Street Road Re-channelization Public Meeting: The objectives were to share the proposed east-west bike corridor and roadway re-channelization project. The participants were in support of the project. 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-1 4. Existing Conditions Analysis Methods and Assumptions A Methods and Assumptions Memo was drafted in March 2021 and periodically updated as the study progressed. The memo summarized data collection efforts, travel demand forecasting, methodology for baseline conditions analysis (traffic operations, safety, active transportation, and parking) and methodology for screening metrics (travel time, travel time reliability, and person mobility). The Methods and Assumptions Memo is included in Appendix D. Mode Share Mode share is the share of people using a particular mode of transportation. Mode share was collected for NBK-BR and Kitsap County to understand existing travel habits in the study area and how they compare to the region. The State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law affects worksites with 100 or more full-time employees. Worksites conduct CTR surveys every other year to measure vehicle miles traveled and the mode choices of their employees. The Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Puget Sound and the U.S. Navy completed CTR surveys in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, and the data were used to estimate mode share for NBK-BR, as shown in Figure 4-1. The Kitsap County (County) mode share from PSRC is shown in Figure 4-2. Compared to the rest of the County, there is a higher percentage people traveling to NBK-BR that use shared ride and transit and a lower percentage that walk, bicycle, or drive alone. Parking The City of Bremerton Parking Study (City of Bremerton 2017) was conducted to better understand parking conditions in Downtown, including available parking facilities, occupancy, duration, turnover, and movement analysis showing where vehicles moved throughout the day. In Downtown, there is both on-street parking and off-street parking. The “85 percent rule” is a common metric used to assess and manage demand for on- street parking. Parking occupancy of 85 percent or below ensures there is at least one stall available on each block. Occupancies above 85 percent indicate opportunities to further manage parking demand by decreasing time limits, increasing pricing, or using other strategies. On average throughout the collection area, on-street parking occupancy was between about 50 percent and 70 percent, with two 68 percent peaks shown at midday and the end of the work day, as shown in Figure 4-3. Occupancy for on-street parking on many streets near NBK-BR exceeded 85 percent. Occupancy for off-street facilities peaked at 65 percent, which indicates overall system capacity, even if certain locations are experiencing higher demand, as shown in Figure 4-4. The data collection indicated that high demand for off-street parking was scattered throughout the downtown core, near the ferry terminal, and near NBK-BR. Some additional off-street facilities showed high use, some of which were smaller lots serving local businesses. Parking for employees and commuters tended to have higher occupancy with less variation throughout the day. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-2 Figure 4-1. NBK-BR Mode Share 18% 62% 14% 6% 15% 69% 6% 10% Drive Alone Shared Ride Transit Walk / Bike NBK-BR KitsapCounty Figure 4-2. Kitsap County Mode Share CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-3 Within NBK-BR, there are about 8,200 parking stalls, half of which are available to civilians and half are available to active duty. This number includes the parking garage in Downtown located at 4th Street and Park Avenue that has approximately 960 parking stalls dedicated to NBK-BR civilians. Some of these spaces are restricted for carpool/ vanpool and are ADA-accessible stalls. According to NBK-BR, the available parking on NBK-BR and at the off-installation parking garage in Downtown is fully utilized. On a typical day, over 6,300 NBK-BR commuter vehicles park outside of the gates during the peak period. Key Findings The following summarizes the key findings of the parking evaluation. • On-street blocks near NBK-BR that have an occupancy of 85 percent and above signal that parking demand exceeds parking supply. Much of the available off-street parking also has high occupancies in commuter parking areas. • Parking duration is over 6 hours on many residential streets, despite time limits of 1 to 2 hours for non-permit holders. There is a significant vehicle movement during the day known as the “Bremerton Shuffle,” which is likely a result of long-term users seeking to avoid time limits. This means neighborhood residents are not able to park at or near their homes during the day. • The City has increased parking enforcement in recent years, so commuters are now parking in neighborhoods further out and are willing to walk farther to access NBK-BR. • The current parking in Downtown Bremerton is contrary to a user-friendly, convenient, and enforceable parking system. The presence and high occupancy of private Downtown surface parking lots prevents redevelopment of these surface lots for more active Downtown uses. • There is limited parking on NBK-BR and the off- installation parking garage in Downtown that is fully utilized, according to NBK-BR. There are no plans to significantly increase parking on NBK- BR. Over 6,300 NBK-BR commuter vehicles park outside of the gates during the peak period and then the occupants walk into NBK-BR. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-4 Figure 4-3. On-Street Parking Occupancy Source: Kimley Horn, 2016 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-5 Figure 4-4. Off-Street Parking Occupancy Source: Kimley Horn, 2016 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-6 Traffic Operations Traffic Volumes As discussed in the Methods and Assumptions Memo (Appendix D), AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were collected for each of the study intersections from historic City counts, the SR 303 Corridor Study (City of Bremerton 2021), and new counts collected on January 26, 2021. In the morning, most of the intersections in Downtown have a peak hour of 6:15 to 7:15 a.m. due to shifts starting at NBK-BR, with the AM peak hour period occurring from 5 to 9 a.m. In the evening, the system peak hour is 4 to 5 p.m., with the PM peak period occurring from 2 to 6 p.m. The peak hour intersection traffic volumes were used to determine the distribution of traffic coming in and out of Downtown Bremerton. These distributions for the Existing Conditions AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figure 4-5. As can be seen in Figure 4-5, the highest single percentage (30 percent) of people coming into the City of Bremerton come from the south using Charleston Boulevard. People coming from SR 3 and Kitsap Way add up to 22 percent, and another 23 percent come from SR 303 north of the Warren Avenue Bridge. These three primary access locations account for 75 percent of the people destined to various locations within the City. This data helped the study team understand where to focus attention to improve the transportation network. During the AM peak period, 60 percent of traffic coming into Bremerton is attributed to NBK-BR. According to NBK-BR employee numbers and mode share, 80 percent of NBK-BR employees commute by driving alone or in a shared ride, with a total of 18,500 people traveling to NBK-BR by privately owned vehicle during the AM peak period. It should be noted that outside of Downtown Bremerton, there is traffic congestion through Gorst and through the SR 3/SR 304 interchange. If the Gorst bottleneck is removed, more traffic would reach Downtown Bremerton faster during the AM peak, resulting in higher levels of congestion in Downtown Bremerton. In the PM Peak hour, traffic traveling through Gorst would exit the City more quickly bringing congestion relief and air quality benefits. Operations Analysis The study team evaluated 58 intersections to understand traffic patterns and operations and consider solutions. The intersections were analyzed for level of service (LOS), volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, queueing, and travel times. The v/c ratio is primarily used as a measure of the effectiveness of roundabouts, which are absent in Existing Conditions. Additional information on the software and measures of effectiveness used in the traffic operations analysis is discussed in the Methods and Assumptions Memo (Appendix D). More detailed information on the traffic operations results is included in Appendix E, and the key findings are summarized in Section 4. Level of Service LOS is a common method for measuring traffic operations, defined in terms of average intersection delay on a scale ranging from A to F. The Existing Conditions AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study intersections are shown in Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7. According to the Transportation Appendix of the City of Bremerton 2016 Comprehensive Plan (City of Bremerton 2016), the City has a LOS standard of LOS E or better, except along routes that are a WSDOT Highway of Statewide Significance. Three routes within the City are Highways of Statewide Significance: SR 3, SR 304, and SR 310. For intersections along the mainline of these routes, the LOS standard is LOS D. SR 303 is classified as a Highway of Regional Significance, with a level of service standard of LOS E. Table 4-1 shows the intersections that are exceeding LOS standards during the Existing Conditions peak hours. Additional LOS information is included in Appendix E. These intersections are mostly exceeding LOS standards due to large volumes traveling towards Downtown during the AM peak hour and away from Downtown during the PM peak hour and insufficient roadway capacity to accommodate these volumes. At the two-way stop- controlled intersections, vehicles on minor streets are delayed by the large volumes on major streets. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-7 Table 4-1. Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Results – Exceeding LOS Standards ID INTERSECTION CONTROL TYPE LOS STANDARD EXISTING CONDITIONS 2020 AM PEAK PM PEAK HOUR LOS Delay (s)LOS Delay (s) 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signal D D 46 E 69 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signal D F 80 E 75 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signal E E 50 F 88 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge Signal E F 214 E 64 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signal E B 20 F 83 104 SR 3 SB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd TWSC D F 82 F 508 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)TWSC D D 29 E 43 LOS = level of service; SB = southbound; TWSC = two-way stop-controlled Note: Orange shading indicates LOS E and red shading indicates LOS F Queueing Another measure of effectiveness is intersection queue lengths. Queues that are exceeded only 5 percent of the time are 95th percentile queue lengths. Multiple intersections have queue lengths that exceed the available storage capacity during the AM and PM peak hour. These queues lengths spill back into adjacent intersections and contribute to congestion. Vehicle queues at NBK-BR entry gates sometimes cause back- ups on City streets. Additionally, there are multiple locations where queues exceed available storage capacity, including intersections that operate within City standards. Long queues block business driveway access, increase travel times for both GP traffic and transit, and can lead to cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. Queue lengths are included in Appendix E. Travel Time Another method of measuring traffic operations is travel time. GP traffic travel times for key routes were calculated using intersection delay and travel speeds between intersections and calibrated using existing Wi-Fi travel time data collected by the City in January 2018. Transit travel times were calculated by adding estimated dwell time at bus stops and time to access park and rides as applicable. The travel times for inbound traffic in the Existing Conditions AM peak hour are shown in Figure 4-8 and the travel times for outbound traffic in the Existing Conditions PM peak hour are shown in Figure 4-9. During the AM peak hour, GP traffic travel times range from 3 to 7 minutes, and during the PM peak hour, GP traffic travel times range from 3 to 10 minutes. Key Findings The following summarizes the key findings of the peak hour traffic operations analysis. • During the peak period, 60 percent of traffic coming into Bremerton is attributed to NBK- BR and 80 percent of NBK-BR employees commute by driving alone or in a shared ride, with a total of 18,500 people traveling to NBK-BR by privately owned vehicle during the AM peak period. • Several study intersections are exceeding LOS standards during either the AM peak hour, the PM peak hour, or both. This is mostly due to large volumes traveling to and from Downtown along the major corridors. • Vehicle queues at NBK-BR entry gates sometimes cause back-ups on City streets. Additionally, there are multiple locations where queues exceed available storage capacity, including intersections that operate within City standards. Long queues block business driveway access, increase travel times for both GP traffic and transit, and can lead to cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. • Outside of Downtown Bremerton, there is traffic congestion through Gorst and through the SR 3/SR 304 interchange. If the Gorst bottleneck is removed, more traffic would reach Downtown Bremerton faster, resulting in higher levels of congestion in Downtown Bremerton. 4-8 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WHEATON WAY (SR 303)ENTRAL6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions X% City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Inbound Vehicle Percentage (AM Peak Hour) Outbound Vehicle Percentage (PM Peak Hour)X% Peak Hour Vehicle Volume Distribution Percentage of inbound or outbound vehicle volumes calculated from peak hour intersection turning movements. 12% 7% 15% 5% 23% 24% 30% 24% 9% 10% 3% 4% 3% 7%KITSAP WAY10%14% Figure 4-5. Existing Vehicle Volume Distribution 4-9 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVD2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 93 94 104 105 307 316 317 318 319 400 401 404 403 402 16 27 38 135 CITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3202 216 NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN Existing ConditionsLevel of Service & Queue Lengths PM Peak Hour LOS F LOS E LOS D LOS A - C Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Intersection numbers# Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Figure 4-6. Existing Level of Service – AM Peak Hour 4-10 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTON BLVD2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 93 94 104 105 307 316 317 318 319 400 401 404 403 402 16 27 38 135 CITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3202 216 NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN Existing ConditionsLevel of Service & Queue Lengths PM Peak Hour LOS F LOS E LOS D LOS A - C Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Intersection numbers# Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Figure 4-7. Existing Level of Service – PM Peak Hour 4-11 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Travel Time Estimates - AM Peak Kitsap Way (SR 310) City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton 11th Street 6th Street Burwell Street (SR 304)Warren Avenue (SR 303)Charleston Boulevard Travel Time Along Route Free Flow (Minutes and Seconds) + Dierence from Free Flow + Dierence from Free Flow Vehicle Transit 02:20 03:30 + 01:10 06:10 + 03:50 02:10 03:20 + 01:10 + 02:3004:40 02:20 03:30 + 01:10 + 05:2007:20 02:20 03:20 + 01:00 + 04:2006:40 06:10 07:30 + 01:20 + 06:2012:30 01:50 03:10 + 01:20 + 02:4004:30 Figure 4-8. Existing Travel Times – AM Peak Hour 4-12 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Travel Time Estimates - PM Peak Kitsap Way (SR 310) City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Travel Time Along Route Free Flow 11th Street 6th Street Burwell Street (SR 304)Warren Avenue (SR 303)Charleston Boulevard (Minutes and Seconds) 02:20 04:30 + 02:10 06:00 + 03:40 02:10 03:10 + 01:00 + 02:3004:40 02:20 03:00 + 00:40 + 05:3007:50 02:20 03:20 + 01:00 + 04:0006:20 06:10 9:30 + 03:20 + 08:4014:50 01:50 03:20 + 01:30 + 01:3003:20 + Dierence from Free Flow + Dierence from Free Flow Vehicle Transit Figure 4-9. Existing Travel Times – PM Peak Hour CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-13 Transit Public transit in Bremerton consists of fixed-route bus, worker/driver bus, and ferry service provided by Kitsap Transit, Mason Transit, and Washington State Ferries. According to NBK-BR employee numbers and mode share, 14 percent of NBK-BR employees commute by fixed-route bus, worker/driver bus, or ferry, with a total of 3,000 people traveling to NBK-BR by transit during the AM peak period. Transit Facilities The Bremerton Ferry Terminal is a major transportation hub for Kitsap County, with the Bremerton to Seattle ferry carrying almost 2.9 million riders in 2018. The ferry terminal also provides passenger-only connections to Seattle, Port Orchard, and Annapolis through the Kitsap Transit fast ferry and local ferry routes. The Bremerton Transportation Center is adjacent to the Bremerton Ferry Terminal and provides connections to key local and regional destinations through 12 Kitsap Transit bus routes and 2 Mason Transit bus routes. Kitsap Transit operates several park and ride (P&R) lots within City limits: Gateway P&R at 6th Street and N Montgomery Avenue, Bremerton United Methodist Church at Marine Drive and Dora Avenue, and Wheaton Way Transit Center at E Broad Street and Wheaton Way (SR 303). There are also several P&Rs outside of the City limits that provide service to commuters. These P&Rs are accessed by both fixed- route buses and worker/driver buses. There are no dedicated transit lanes along roadways in Bremerton. There is a southbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane along Charleston Boulevard (SR 304) that can be used by privately-owned vehicles and transit. Fixed-Route Buses Kitsap Transit operates several bus routes, mostly along the main travel corridors in Downtown Bremerton: Warren Avenue (SR 303), Burwell Avenue (SR 304), 6th Street, 11th Street, and Kitsap Way. During peak periods, headways range from 30 to 75 minutes. According to the National Association of City Transportation Officials, moderate-volume transit systems generally have 5- to 10-minute headways during peak periods, and high-volume transit systems generally have 2- to 6-minute headways (NACTO 2016). Even for a low-volume transit system like Kitsap Transit, headways would be expected to be closer to 15 minutes during peak periods. The fixed-route bus network is shown in Figure 4-10. This figure also shows the capacity and occupancy for the three P&Rs located within City limits. The transit service shown in Figure 4-10 provides good coverage for travel in and around the City. For people who live south of the City, there are no fixed transit routes that provide direct access to the City or NBK-BR. With 30 percent of the people driving to Bremerton from the south, this highlights an opportunity to consider new fixed-route service to and from the south. Worker/Driver Buses Kitsap Transit also operates a Worker/Driver Bus program for employees traveling to and from NBK- BR. Buses serve both NBK-BR and NBK-Bangor north of the City limits and are open to the general public outside of the military bases. The buses operate like a large vanpool, with the driver boarding a bus near their home and picking up coworkers on the way to work. For each worker/driver route, there is one trip to work during the morning commute and one trip from work during the evening commute. Kitsap Transit has 32 worker/driver routes and about 1,500 NBK-BR employees use it to commute to NBK-BR. Eligible federal employees can ride any of Kitsap Transit’s services for free through the Federal Transportation Incentive Program. Employees must purchase a pass through the incentive program and load it onto an ORCA card1 for use on worker/ driver buses and other public transit services, and then submit for reimbursement. Previously, eligible federal employees were automatically given free access to the worker/driver program. 1 An ORCA card is an electronic fare payment system accepted on Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit, King County Metro Transit, Community Transit, Sound Transit, Everett Transit, and the Washington State Ferries. It allows riders to load fare product, like a monthly pass, onto their card and tap their card aboard a bus, train, or ferry to pay their fare. Instead of carrying different passes for different transit systems, riders carry just one card. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-14 The worker/driver bus network is shown in Figure 4-11. This figure also shows the capacity and occupancy for the three P&Rs located within City limits. It can be seen in Figure 4-11 that the worker/ driver bus provides service to areas south of Bremerton using SR 3 through Gorst to get north to NBK-BR using the Charleston Boulevard (SR 304) exit. Transit Operations The travel times for inbound traffic in the Existing Conditions AM peak hour are shown in Figure 4-8 and the travel times for outbound traffic in the Existing Conditions PM peak hour are shown in Figure 4-9. Transit travel times are up to 160 percent longer than GP traffic travel times due to dwell times for unloading and loading passengers and time spent decelerating and accelerating at transit stops. Travel times between transit stops are the same as GP traffic due to a lack of dedicated transit facilities such as a business access transit (BAT) lane or transit signal priority (TSP). Key Findings The following summarizes the key findings of the transit evaluation. • 14 percent of NBK-BR employees commute by fixed-route bus, worker/driver bus, or ferry, with a total of 3,000 people traveling to NBK-BR by transit during the AM peak period. • Buses use the same facilities as GP traffic and have limited frequency, which does not encourage transit use. • Existing P&Rs in West Bremerton and Silverdale do not have adequate capacity and are not able to meet the transit demand in these locations. • The current Federal reimbursement system for transit passes to NBK-BR employees has a negative impact on enrollment in the worker/ driver bus program. 4-15 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Bus Routes (Kitsap Transit) Kitsap Transit Fast Ferry Park & Ride Kitsap Fast Ferry Terminal Bus Stops P&R Route 3 - Direct Service to Bremerton Ferry Terminal Bus Routes (Mason Transit) Regional Transit Network P&R P&R P&R Park and Ride Location Spaces Available Wheaton Way P&R 162 Bremerton United Methodist Church 53 Gateway Center 104 N/A 60% 60% N/A 47% 84% 2016 Average Utilization 2019 Average Utilization Figure 4-10. Fixed-Route Bus Network 4-16 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Kitsap Transit Worker / Driver Network City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Worker / Driver Routes Stops P&R P&R P&R Park and Ride Location Spaces Available Wheaton Way P&R 162 Bremerton United Methodist Church 53 Gateway Center 104 N/A 60% 60% N/A 47% 84% 2016 Average Utilization 2019 Average Utilization Figure 4-11. Worker/Driver Bus Network CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-17 Active Transportation Active transportation is defined as using a human-scale and often human- powered means of travel to get from one place to another and includes walking; bicycling; using a mobility assistive or adaptive device, such as a wheelchair or walker; using micromobility devices, such as skateboards or foot scooters; and using electric-assist devices, such as e-bikes and e-foot scooters. Active Transportation Facilities The existing pedestrian facilities are shown in Figure 4-12, and the existing bicycle facilities are shown in Figure 4-13. The existing bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and crossings in the study area were evaluated to determine the existing active transportation network. Data for the existing sidewalk gaps and obstructions were documented using a geographic information system provided by the City. Sidewalks are classified as one of three levels: poor or very poor; fair or marginal; and good, very good, or excellent. Many of the sidewalks near NBK-BR are classified as marginal or worse. Additionally, many sidewalks are narrow and have obstructions such as utility poles and fire hydrants. There is also a lack of buffers between sidewalks and travel lanes. Within Downtown Bremerton, there are very few bicycle facilities, with bike lanes along Kitsap Way, Charleston Boulevard (SR 304), and Washington Avenue. The existing bicycle facilities are located on high-speed and high-volume roadways that lack a buffer between cyclists and vehicles. There is a lack of wayfinding to help cyclists find marked routes and a lack of commuter cyclist amenities, like bike racks and storage. There are no regional bicycle facilities that provide opportunities for people to cycle into Downtown Bremerton or NBK-BR. Additionally, the existing bicycle corridors shown in Figure 4-13 are fragments that do not provide direct access to key destinations or origins. Generally, there are gaps in the sidewalk and bicycle network, limited street connectivity in West Bremerton and Manette, difficult roadway crossings, and barriers, such as surrounding water, fences around NBK-BR, and busy arterials, like SR 303 and Kitsap Way. The poor existing facilities and poor network connectivity can contribute to perceived safety issues for active transportation users and do not encourage walking or bicycling to and within Downtown Bremerton. Many large employers provide easy access for people to drive onto the site and either park or get dropped off by another person. NBK-BR is a controlled facility that does not facilitate easy drop-offs or pick-ups, and there are no designated drop-off or pick-up locations adjacent to the NBKBR gates. Dropoff or pick-up must occur on City streets or using one of the surface parking lots. Active Transportation Volumes Data for the number of bicyclists and pedestrians during the Existing Conditions AM and PM peak hours was collected at the same time as the intersection turning-movement counts. It should be noted that low active transportation use does not equate to low demand when active transportation networks are incomplete or are high stress. In other words, many more people might want to use active transportation modes like walking, bicycling, boarding, or other rolling methods to reach their destinations, but because adequate facilities are not available, they choose to drive or ride transit instead. Based on counts at the NBK-BR entry gates, there are 10,000 incoming daily pedestrians that travel through the NBK-BR gates to access NBKBR. 8,500 of these pedestrians are assumed to be NBK-BR employees that park Downtown and walk into NBK- BR, while the remaining 1,500 are NBK-BR employees that travel by active transportation, bus, or ferry to NBK-BR. This is a mix of NBK-BR commuters who travel to Bremerton by transit, walking, or bicycling as well as commuters who park in Downtown Bremerton and walk into NBK-BR. Bicycling is not allowed within the Controlled Industrial Area, so bicycling commuters must dismount and walk their bicycles through the gates. The number of daily inbound pedestrians that travel through each NBK- BR gate is shown in Figure 4-14. According to NBK-BR employee numbers and mode share, 14 percent of NBK-BR employees commute by walking or bicycling, with a total of 1,400 people traveling to NBK-BR via active transportation during the AM peak period of 5 to 9 a.m. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-18 Key Findings The following summarizes the key findings of the active transportation evaluation. • 14 percent of NBK-BR employees commute by walking or bicycling, with a total of 1,400 people traveling to NBK-BR via active transportation during the AM peak period. • Many sidewalks are in poor condition, are narrow, and have obstructions such as utility poles and fire hydrants. There is a lack of buffers between sidewalks and travel lanes. • The existing bicycle facilities are located on high-speed and high-volume roadways that lack a buffer between cyclists and vehicles. There is a lack of wayfinding to help cyclists find marked routes and a lack of commuter cyclist amenities like bike racks and storage. • There are gaps in the sidewalk and bicycle network, limited street connectivity in West Bremerton and Manette, difficult roadway crossings, and barriers, such as surrounding water, fences around NBK-BR, and busy arterials, like SR 303 and Kitsap Way. • The poor existing facilities and poor network connectivity can contribute to perceived safety issues for active transportation users and do not encourage walking or bicycling to and within Downtown Bremerton. 4-19 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Pedestrian Facilities City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Naval Base Entrance P&R Kitsap Fast Ferry Terminal P&R P&R P&R Park & Ride No data Poor or Very Poor Fair or Marginal Good, Very Good, or Excellent Data shown represents sidewalk conditions. This does not show ADA facilities or pedestrian crossings. Figure 4-12. Existing Pedestrian Facilities 4-20 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Bicycle Facilities City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Bike Lane Sharrow Shared Use Path Naval Base Entrance P&R Kitsap Fast Ferry Terminal Park & Ride P&R P&R P&R Figure 4-13. Existing Bicycle Facilities CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-21 6TH ST6TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) FARRAGUT ST STATE AVE4TH ST 2ND S TWASHINGTON AVECHARLEST O N BLV D NAVE5TH ST N MONTGOMERY AVEBRYAN AVES CALLOW AVENAVAL AVE0 990495 FeetN Existing Conditions CITY OF BREMERTON Daily Pedestrian Volumes to NBK-BR City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Charleston Gate: 400 Pedestrian Trips Missouri Gate: 0 Pedestrian Trips Montgomery Gate: 0 Pedestrian Trips Naval Gate: 500 Pedestrian Trips State Street: 4,000 Pedestrian Trips Burwell Gate: 2,800 Pedestrian Trips Main (Bremerton) Gate: 2,400 Pedestrian Trips 10,100 Daily Pedestrian Trips to the Base Figure 4-14. Existing Pedestrian Volumes at NBK-BR CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-22 Key Findings The following summarizes the key findings of the crash analysis. • The most common collision type in fatal and serious injury crashes was a hit pedestrian. • Several collision attributes of fatal and serious injury crashes in Bremerton occur at a higher rate in Bremerton than in other western Washington crashes, such as pedestrian walking along or crossing a road, angle collisions, dark/no streetlights, and utility poles. • Rear-end crashes made up for 30 percent of all crashes. Rear-end crashes are often related to higher levels of congestion. Safety Under 23 United States Code §148 and 23 United States Code §409, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, list compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. Citywide crash data collected and used in the 2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan (City of Bremerton 2020b) was used to highlight crash locations and identify locations that require additional attention. The Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan (City of Bremerton 2020b) included analysis of crash data for the years 2014 to 2018. The study team also evaluated 2019 crash data provided by WSDOT. The 2014–2019 reported crash data for the study area are shown in Figure 4-15 and Figure 4-16. The Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan was updated in 2022 (City of Bremerton 2022) and was referenced during project development and screening. 4-23 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD 11TH S T BURWELL S T ( S R 3 0 4 ) SHERIDAN R D LEBOBL V D NE R I D D E L L R D SYLVAN W A Y WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303) 6TH S T WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3 NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 01½Miles 0½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Collisions (2014 - 2019) City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Collisions Under 23 United States Code §148 and 23 United States Code §409, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. Figure 4-15. Collisions (2014–2019)Figure 4-15. Collisions (2014–2019) 4-24 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD 11TH S T BURWELL S T ( S R 3 0 4 ) SHERIDAN R D LEBOBL V D NE R I D D E L L R D SYLVAN W A Y WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303) 6TH S T WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3 NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 01½Miles 0½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Crash Severity (2014 - 2019) Under 23 United States Code §148 and 23 United States Code §409, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Crash Severity Fatality Serious Injury Minor Injury Property Damage Only Unknown Crashes Involving Pedestrains / Pedal Cyclists Fatality Serious Injury Figure 4-16. Crash Severity (2014–2019)Figure 4-16. Crash Severity (2014–2019) CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-25 Industry and Employment Limited employment data availability for the study area restricts the industry and employment analysis to the City of Bremerton (not including the Unincorporated UGA). Total employment in the City of Bremerton was 32,400 in 2019, an increase from 28,000 in 2006. Employment was relatively steady between 2006 and 2013 but grew by 4,000 jobs between 2013 and 2019, as shown in Figure 4-18. Over this period, the share of Kitsap County employment in Bremerton remained stable— between 35 percent and 36 percent of total County jobs. In 2019, over 52 percent of total employment in the study area was concentrated in the government sector. The share of government jobs as a percentage of total employment in the study area has increased since 2006, as shown in Figure 4-19. Most of the jobs in this sector are associated with NBK-BR. Other public agencies that contribute to this employment include the Bremerton Transportation Center and state and County government services facilities. Although Bremerton’s growth patterns remain heavily dependent on military and other government expenditures, this provides a buffer in the local and regional economy during periods of economic volatility. Economics The study team conducted an economic assessment that documented current economic conditions, historic growth trends, and economic drivers in the study area. Data used in this report are drawn from several sources: existing studies and analysis completed by Community Attributes for the SR 303 Corridor Study (City of Bremerton 2021) and the Joint Land Use Study (Kitsap County 2015) and public data sources, including City of Bremerton, PSRC, Washington State Office of Financial Management, Kitsap Economic Development Alliance, Kitsap County Assessor’s office, and CoStar. The Economic and Market Profile is included in Appendix F. Demographics The total population in the study area, which includes the City and the Unincorporated UGA, was 51,100 people in 2020, with 82 percent of the population within the City of Bremerton. This represents almost 19 percent of the total population in Kitsap County. Between 2000 and 2020, population in the study area grew at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent, which is an insignificant increase given the regular fluctuations in the military population of 2,000 to 3,000 people, due to arrival and departure of NBK-BR personnel. Bremerton’s growth has not kept pace with surrounding County and regional areas where unprecedented growth has occurred in the past decade. One possible reason for the area’s stagnant population is revealed in the Housing Element of the City of Bremerton’s Comprehensive Plan, which mentions that current conditions in the housing market are in large part responsible for the City’s lack of growth. In 2019, median household income in the study area was mostly below the Countywide median household income of roughly $75,400, except for a block group on the north side of Belfair Valley Road, as shown in Figure 4-17. The City of Bremerton household income in the same period was $52,700, which is almost $23,000 below the Kitsap County median. Around 16.5 percent of the population for whom poverty status is determined in the City of Bremerton live below the poverty line, compared to 7.5 percent for Kitsap County. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-26SR 3SR 3SR 3 SR 16 SR 1 6 Burwell St Warren AveWheaton WayNaval Base Kitsap Gold Mountain Golf Club Sinclair I nl et Dyes Inlet Charleston BLVD0 31½ City Boundary City of Bremerton UGA N Miles Median Household Income, ACS 2019 In past 12 months of survey, (inﬂation-adjusted dollars to last year of 5-year survey 2015-2019) No Value 0 - $35,382 $35,383 - $52,778 $52,779 - $75,411 (Kitsap County Median) $75,412 - $93,438 $93,439 - $130,250 $130,251 - $250,001 JOINT COMPATIBILITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Median Household Income Figure 4-17. Study Area Median Household Income (2015–2019) Sources: United States Census Bureau, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Jobs ‘000 28.0 27.5 27.7 27.9 28.4 28.8 28.2 28.4 28.6 30.1 30.5 30.9 31.4 32.4 20192018201720162015201420132012201120102009200820072006 Figure 4-18. City of Bremerton Employment (2006–2019) Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-27 0% 2006 43% 35% 7% 7% 8% 52% 28% 6% 5% 3% 6% 2019 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%OTHER MANUFACTURING EDUCATION RETAIL SERVICES GOVERNMENT Figure 4-19. Study Area Employment Share by Industry (2006, 2019) Source: Community Attributes, 2021ncludes Construction/Resources, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities. Land Use and Real Estate The City of Bremerton’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan outlines the future land use policy direction to accommodate the City’s projected population and employment growth for a 20-year planning time horizon with sufficient areas for housing, businesses, and industry. The Land Use Element maps the entire City into a series of land use districts intended to guide the character and intensity of development based on these and other goals and policies. To ascertain how successfully the City of Bremerton has implemented its land use vision, the study team mapped the most current snapshot available of the current land uses found on parcels in the City and UGA, based on the Kitsap County Assessor’s parcel-specific land use coding system, shown in Figure 4-20. These codes are updated on a rolling basis, as much as possible, and do not always reflect an accurate representation of actual land uses. In comparing planned land use and zoning with actual land uses, the following themes emerge: • Bremerton has not achieved the level of industrial development that it has thus far planned for outside of NBK-BR, especially within the Puget Sound Industrial Center-Bremerton Subarea, but also in the industrially zoned Werner Road area of the City. • Much of the City’s high-density residential development has occurred in planned for zones along SR 303 north of the Warren Ave Bridge. These areas lie along the primary northern commuter route to and from NBK-BR and Downtown Bremerton. • To date, the mix of land uses along the SR 303 corridor include significant tracts of vacant land located in areas currently designated District Center. District Center zones are intended as “small downtowns” with moderate- to high- density mixed uses at their core, transitioning out to singlefamily areas. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 4-28SR 3SR 3SR 3 SR 16 SR 1 6 SE Sedgwick Rd SE Mile Hill DR SW Bay S t Bay StBurwell St Warren AveWheaton WayNaval Base Kitsap Gold Mountain Golf Club Sinclair I nl e t Dyes Inlet Port Orchard Charleston BLVD0 31½ Miles City Boundary City of Bremerton UGA N Parks, Recreation & Open Space Property Classes (Kitsap Assessor, 2021) Services & Repair Retail & Food Transportation & Parking Utilities Undeveloped Land Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential Other Cemetery Institutional, Education, Medical Government Lodging Industrial JOINT COMPATIBILITY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Current Land Use Map Figure 4-20. Study Area Current Property Classes (2019) Sources: Kitsap County, 2021; City of Bremerton, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 5. FUTURE NO BUILD CONDITIONS CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 5-1 Table 5-1. Study Area Household and Employment Forecasts AREA HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS Year 2019 Year 2050 Annual Growth Rate Year 2019 Year 2050 Annual Growth Rate City of Bremerton 17,300 27,500 1.9 percent 41,000 55,500 1.1 percent Unincorporated UGA 6,200 9,400 1.7 percent 3,600 6,200 2.3 percent Total 23,500 36,900 1.8 percent 44,600 61,700 1.2 percent In developing VISION 2050, PSRC developed future year growth patterns consistent with the policies of the final Regional Growth Strategy. This initial representation will be refined as jurisdictions begin the next round of growth target and comprehensive plan updates as required under the Growth Management Act, a process that will continue through mid-2024. PSRC is choosing not to publish an updated version of its land use forecast product, the Land Use Vision, until after the first major round of implementation work, the GMA growth target updates, are complete. This forecast is an initial, and one possible, version of a growth pattern that meet’s VISION 2050’s policy objectives. It was used for analysis of the Regional Growth Strategy. It is not reflective of adopted GMA growth targets as these are currently under development. (PSRC, February 2021) Future No Build Parking NBK-BR continually seeks opportunities to improve on- base parking including recent conversions of a carwash and parade grounds to new surface parking lots (~160 additional parking spaces), but underutilized space on-base is very low. In addition, NBK-BR has plans for multibillion-dollar shipyard modernizations, and through the review process, on-base parking needs are being considered. Review is still pending, but initial analysis indicates that there is no planned increase to employment growth forecasted for NBK-BR for the shipyard modernizations. Other than small area conversions to surface parking lots, and shipyard modernization considering if additional parking is triggered, NBK-BR has no further capital plans to increase on-base parking. No increases in parking capacity are anticipated by the City. As the City pursues their growth plan, conflicts between residential parking and commuter parking will increase. 5. Future No Build Conditions The Year 2050 Future No Build Condition was evaluated to understand how conditions will change over the next 30 years for parking, traffic operations, transit, active transportation, and safety. The City travel demand forecasting model was used to understand future year 2050 travel patterns and develop peak hour volumes for the traffic analysis. There are 125 traffic analysis zones within the travel demand model area and eight external gateways. Each of the transportation analysis zones includes an estimated level of population (housing) and employment (jobs) that the model then uses to estimate how people will travel from their homes to their jobs or other non-work related trips. PSRC provided draft year 2050 growth targets for the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County, as shown in Table 5-1. Employment in the City is shown to grow by 1.1 percent annually, with a total of 55,500 jobs by year 2050 and many of those jobs being located Downtown. City leadership is planning for key housing development locations just west of SR 3 and in Downtown. Even with these new developments, it is anticipated that most employees will be traveling to and from Downtown using the various transportation modes available. At this time, there is no growth forecasted for NBK-BR in the foreseeable future. Additional details on the travel demand forecasting are available in the Future No Build Forecasting Memo in Appendix G. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 5-2 2050 No Build Conditions compared to Existing Conditions, and less volume is coming to/from the south along Charleston Boulevard (SR 304). Operations Analysis Level of Service and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio The Year 2050 No Build AM and PM peak hour LOS for the study intersections are shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. Table 5-2 shows the intersections that are exceeding LOS standards. Additional LOS information is included in Appendix E. Similar to Existing Conditions, these intersections are mostly exceeding LOS standards due to large volumes traveling towards Downtown during the AM peak hour and away from Downtown during the PM peak hour and insufficient roadway capacity to accommodate these volumes. At the two-way stop- controlled intersections, vehicles on minor streets are delayed by the large volumes on major streets. Some intersections, such as Warren Avenue (SR 303) and 11th Street (Intersection #22), slightly improve compared to Existing Conditions due to the optimization of signal timing. Signal timing was optimized along Burwell Street, 11th Street, and SR 303 to account for the No Build roadway projects. Future No Build Traffic Operations For the Year 2050 No Build analysis, the traffic models were updated to include any relevant planned roadway improvement projects that impacted roadway channelization or signal timing. Planning projects were pulled from the City of Bremerton 2021–2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (City of Bremerton 2020c) and the Kitsap County 2021–2026 TIP (Kitsap County 2020). These projects included: • Washington Avenue • Burwell Street Adaptive Signals • 11th Street/Callow Avenue Intersection Improvements • HSIP III Kitsap Way Bike Lanes and Warren Avenue Traffic Signal Safety Signal timing was optimized for the intersections along Burwell Street, 11th Street, and SR 303 to account for the projects along these corridors. Other assumptions for the Year 2050 No Build analysis, including additional background projects that were included in the travel demand modeling, are discussed in the Methods and Assumptions Memo (Appendix D). Traffic Volumes Based on the travel demand modeling, the estimated growth rates for the individual study intersections range from −4 percent to +85 percent between 2019 and 2050. The growth rates for individual study intersections were averaged to determine an overall average growth rate for several different corridors and subareas. It should be noted that while the study intersections in Downtown were forecasted to grow by 20 percent by 2050, the growth for the traffic analysis zone where NBK-BR is located was 0 percent. These growth rates were used to develop intersection traffic volumes for the Year 2050 AM and PM peak hours. The forecasted 2050 traffic volumes were used to determine the distribution of traffic coming in and out of Downtown Bremerton, as shown in Figure 5-1. Generally, more volume is coming to/from the north along SR 303 during Year CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 5-3 Table 5-2. Year 2050 No Build Traffic Operations Results – Exceeding LOS Standards ID INTERSECTION CONTROL TYPE LOS STANDARD EXISTING 2020 NO BUILD 2050 AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK LOS Delay (s)LOS Delay (s)LOS Delay (s)LOS Delay (s) 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signal D D 46 E 69 D 51 E 70 7 National Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signal D ----F 80 D 53 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signal D F 80 E 75 F 110 E 88 10 11th St at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signal D ----A 8 E 61 17 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 6th St Signal E ----D 51 E 73 19 Pacific Ave at 6th St AWSC E ----C 20 F 58 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signal E E 50 F 88 D 44 F 78 25 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sheridan Rd Signal E ----D 41 F 93 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge RAB1 -F 214 E 64 ---- 37 Naval Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signal D ----D 41 E 55 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signal E B 20 F 83 C 22 F 105 94 Austin Dr at SR 3 SB Ramps TWSC D ----C 19 F 178 104 SR 3 SB Ramps at W Loxie Eagans Blvd TWSC D F 82 F 508 F 179 F 1537 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)TWSC D D 29 E 43 E 44 F 110 202 SR 16 Spur/Sam Christopherson Dr at SR 3 Signal D ----F 142 F 173 216 SR 3 at Imperial Way Signal D ----F 365 F 246 AWSC = all-way stop-controlled; LOS = level of service; RAB = roundabout; SB = southbound; TWSC = two-way stop-controlled Note: Orange shading indicates LOS E and red shading indicates LOS F 1 A roundabout is planned to be constructed at Washington Avenue and Manette Bridge (intersection #34). Unlike other intersection control types, the primary measure of effectiveness for roundabouts is volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. The v/c ratio measures the amount of traffic on a given roadway relative to the amount of traffic the roadway was designed to accommodate. The goal for roundabouts is for the v/c ratio to be between 0.85 and 0.90. During the Year 2050 No Build PM peak hour, intersection #34 is expected to have a v/c ratio of 1.34. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 5-4 Key Findings The following summarizes the additional key findings of the Year 2050 No Build peak hour traffic operations analysis. • Traffic in the City is estimated to grow by 20 percent by year 2050. Without opportunities for alternative modes of travel to driving alone, congestion will increase proportionately with the increase in traffic volumes, resulting in significant congestion throughout Bremerton. • There are multiple locations where queues exceed available storage capacity, including intersections that operate at LOS D or better. Peak hour queues along Kitsap Way are particularly long, with some over 1,000 feet long. • The new roundabout at Washington Avenue/ Manette Bridge is forecasted to have northbound queues longer than 3,000 feet during the Year 2050 No Build PM peak hour. • Long queues block business driveway access, increase travel times for both GP traffic and transit, and can lead to cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. • GP traffic travel times are expected to increase by up to 40 percent in the Year 2050 No Build Condition compared to Existing Conditions. Queueing Another measure of effectiveness is intersection queue lengths. 95th percentile queue lengths are defined as queues that are only exceeded 5 percent of the time. Multiple intersections have queue lengths that exceed the available storage capacity during the AM and PM peak hour. These queues lengths spill back into adjacent intersections and contribute to congestion. Multiple locations experience queues that exceed available storage capacity, including intersections that operate at LOS D or better. Peak hour queues along Kitsap Way are particularly long, with some over 1,000 feet long. The new roundabout at Washington Avenue/Manette Bridge is forecast to have northbound queues longer than 3,000 feet during the Year 2050 No Build PM peak hour. Similar to Existing Conditions, long queues block business driveway access, increase travel times for both GP traffic and transit, and can lead to cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. Queue lengths are included in Appendix E. Travel Time Future year travel times were calculated using a combination of existing travel times and changes to intersection delay and speeds in the traffic operations models. The Year 2050 No Build travel times for inbound traffic in the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 5-4, and the travel times for outbound traffic in the PM peak hour are shown in Figure 5-5 Figure 4-9. During the AM peak hour, GP traffic travel times range from 4 to 10 minutes, and during the PM peak hour, GP traffic travel times range from 3 to 12 minutes. 5-5 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan PINE RD 11TH S T BURWELL S T ( S R 3 0 4 ) SHERIDAN R D LEBOBL V D NE R I D D E L L R D SYLVAN W A Y WHEATON WAY (SR 303)E6TH S T WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON 0½¼MilesN No Build Conditions X% City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Inbound Vehicle Percentage (AM Peak Hour) Outbound Vehicle Percentage (PM Peak Hour)X% Peak Hour Vehicle Volume Distribution Percentage of inbound or outbound vehicle volumes calculated from peak hour intersection turning movements.WHE11% 6% 14% 5% 26% 25% 26% 21% 13% 13% 3% 5% %11% %6% % % 14% %%26%% 25%HARLESTONBLVLVDCHA26% % % 13%%4% 3% 6%KITSAP WAY9%14% 5%5%5%%%%%%% 333%3%3%3%%%% 6% Figure 5-1. Year 2050 No Build Vehicle Volume DistributionFigure 5-1. Year 2050 No Build Vehicle Volume Distribution 5-6 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTON BLVD2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 93 94 104 105 307 316 317 318 319 400 401 404 403 402 16 27 38 135 CITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3202 216 NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN No Build ConditionsLevel of Service & Queue Lengths AM Peak Hour LOS F LOS E LOS D LOS A - C Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Intersection numbers# Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Figure 5-2. Year 2050 No Build Level of Service – AM Peak Hour 5-7 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTON BLVD2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 93 94 104 105 307 316 317 318 319 400 401 402 403 404 16 27 38 135 CITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 3202 216 NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN No Build Conditions 34 Level of Service & Queue Lengths PM Peak Hour LOS F LOS E LOS D LOS A - C Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Intersection numbers# Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Figure 5-3. Year 2050 No Build Level of Service – PM Peak Hour 5-8 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON 0 ½¼MilesN No Build Conditions Travel Time Estimates - AM Peak Kitsap Way (SR 310) City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton 11th Street 6th Street Burwell Street (SR 304)Warren Avenue (SR 303)Charleston Boulevard Travel Time Along Route Free Flow (Minutes and Seconds) + Dierence from Free Flow + Dierence from Free Flow Vehicle Transit 02:20 07:10 + 04:50 09:30 + 07:10 02:10 04:20 + 02:10 + 03:3005:40 02:20 03:40 + 01:20 + 05:3007:50 02:20 03:50 + 01:30 + 04:5007:10 06:10 10:00 + 03:50 + 08:4014:50 01:50 03:40 + 01:50 + 03:1005:00 Figure 5-4. Year 2050 No Build Travel Times – AM Peak Hour 5-9 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3MAY STCHARLESTONBLVDCITY OF BREMERTON 0 ½¼MilesN No Build Conditions Travel Time Estimates - PM Peak Kitsap Way (SR 310) City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Travel Time Along Route Free Flow 11th Street 6th Street Burwell Street (SR 304)Warren Avenue (SR 303)Charleston Boulevard (Minutes and Seconds) 02:20 06:10 + 03:50 07:40 + 05:20 02:10 05:10 + 03:00 + 04:2006:30 02:20 03:20 + 01:00 + 05:5008:10 02:20 04:10 + 01:50 + 04:4007:00 06:10 12:20 + 06:10 + 11:1017:20 01:50 03:10 + 01:20 + 01:4003:30 + Dierence from Free Flow + Dierence from Free Flow Vehicle Transit Figure 5-5. Year 2050 No Build Travel Times – PM Peak Hour CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 5-10 Future No Build Active Transportation The City has published plans that outline the City’s vision for their active transportation facilities in the future. The City released the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan in December 2007, which presented a vision of a fully developed bicycle/pedestrian system over the next 20 years that would serve residents, commuters, shoppers, and visitors alike. A complete bikeway and walkway network would increase connections within the community, increase the number of children walking and bicycling to school, and promote the health of Bremerton residents by making walking and bicycling safe, comfortable, and attractive travel modes. The City released the ADA Transition Plan in March 2016, which was intended to guide the City’s efforts to provide an accessible transportation system. The purpose of the ADA Transition Plan was to identify deficiencies in City policies, procedures, and physical assets and to provide a path to correction of those deficiencies. This plan also provides guidance for removal of accessibility barriers. The minimum requirement for the scope of the ADA Transition Plan is accessibility of all curb ramps and ancillary facilities (pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian signals) within the right-of-way. Future No Build Safety Under the Year 2050 No Build Condition, safety conditions are likely to remain similar to or worse than Existing Conditions. Overall, background volume growth and increased congestion are likely to contribute to an increase in crashes by Year 2050. Some background projects, as included in the Methods and Assumptions Memo (Appendix D), are likely to improve safety conditions for all users. Future No Build Transit The Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan (Kitsap Transit 2016b) was reviewed during the Year 2050 No Build Condition analysis. The Long Range Plan was updated in 2022 (Kitsap Transit 2022) and was referenced during project development and screening. The study team discussed potential changes to routes, route frequency, and ridership between now and the year 2050 with Kitsap Transit. Though it is too early to anticipate specific changes in routes or types of services, Kitsap Transit was able to provide these estimates for transit service in the year 2050: • 14 hours per day of service • 10- to 15-minute headways • 20 percent growth in ridership from Existing Conditions Overall traffic volumes are also expected to grow by 20 percent by year 2050, suggesting that the percentage of people who are using transit to commute to Downtown is expected to be the same in year 2050 as it is today. The Year 2050 No Build travel times for inbound traffic in the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 5-4, and the travel times for outbound traffic in the PM peak hour are shown in Figure 5-5. Similar to Existing Conditions, transit travel times are longer than GP traffic travel times due to dwell times for unloading and loading passengers and time spent decelerating and accelerating at transit stops. Travel times between transit stops are the same as GP traffic due a lack of dedicated transit facilities, such as a BAT lane or TSP. There is no additional time for transit stops in the Year 2050 No Build Condition compared to Existing Conditions. 6. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-1 6. Alternative Development and Screening Process The study team used a stepwise approach to develop alternatives for analysis and screening. After developing the list of existing and future needs, the study team outlined various improvements to specifically address the study area needs. This approach allowed the team to address agency, public, and jurisdiction needs at certain locations within the City. After the First Level Screening was complete, the team combined various improvements that had similar themes to create Build Alternatives for analysis. Those Build Alternatives were then evaluated using a quantitative approach that would allow a databased comparison of Build Alternatives as to their effectiveness at meeting the project metrics. More information about the approach is described in the following sections. Screening Process A multistep screening process was used to identify, screen, evaluate, and rank potential improvements. This process included these steps, which are discussed in the sections below: 1. Develop improvements 2. Evaluate improvements through First Level Screening 3. Combine passing improvements into three Build Alternatives 4. Evaluate Build Alternatives through Second Level Screening 5. Develop a preliminary Preferred Alternative and evaluate using Second Level Screening metrics 6. Establish a Preferred Alternative The methodology for the screening process is documented in the Screening and Evaluation Methodology Memo in Appendix H. Develop Improvements The first step in the screening process was to generate improvements with the potential to address the key findings and needs identified through the Existing Conditions and Future No Build Conditions analysis. Improvements were generated based on input from previous studies, the CSB, the study team, and the public. A workshop to develop these improvements was held in June 2021 with the project management team and key partners. The CSB was then asked to provide comments on the proposed improvements as well as additional suggestions. The proposed improvements were then divided into the following categories: • PC: New/Expanded Parking • C: Capacity Projects (e.g., changes in lanes, signals, intersection control) • B: Projects on Base • T: Transit Service/Frequency • AT: Active Transportation • E: Education • PM: Parking Management/Policy • CTR: Programs/Technologies/Incentives to Encourage Mode Shift • O: Other A full list of the proposed improvements is included in the First Level Screening Results in Appendix I. First Level Screening First Level Screening Metrics The First Level Screening was a mostly qualitative evaluation that measured each improvement’s ability to meet the study goals. Each improvement was measured according to the following three metrics. • Is the improvement consistent with the goals of the study? The study goal is to define solutions to improve multimodal mobility, outline parking strategies, and enhance Bremerton’s livability. If the improvement would not meet the study goal or was not within the scope of the study, it was screened out. • Is the improvement feasible? Feasibility was measured by determining whether the improvement would be reasonable based on City management support, neighborhood support, support of NBKBR operations, and cost effectiveness. If the improvement was determined to be infeasible, it was screened out. • Has the improvement been found to be ineffective by a previous study or plan? If the CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-2 Proposed Alternatives No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative represents the Future No Build Conditions for the year 2050 and serves as a baseline for the comparison of potential improvements. Build Alternatives The 141 improvements that passed First Level Screening were divided into three different Build Alternatives: the Support Parking Alternative, the Relocate Parking Alternative, and the Add Base Parking Alternative. Each alternative was driven by a unique vision for parking for NBK-BR commuters. The alternatives were organized around parking strategies so that the study team could understand how traffic volumes and parking patterns impacted the potential solutions. Fifty-five improvements were aligned with all three visions and were assigned to all three Build Alternatives. Thirty-one of these improvements were specifically active transportation improvements, which are discussed separately below. The 24 non- active transportation improvements that were included in all three Build Alternatives are shown in Table 6-1. improvement had been studied as part of a previous planning effort and was determined to not provide a benefit, then the improvement was screened out. First Level Screening Results Each improvement was evaluated according to the three metrics described above. If the improvement passed all three metrics, then it passed the First Level Screening. Most improvements were able to be evaluated qualitatively, but a few improvements required planning-level traffic modeling to determine whether the improvement was feasible. Below is a summary of the results of the First Level Screening: • 212 improvements were evaluated. • 71 improvements did not meet criteria and were screened out. 38 of the 71 improvements were repeats of other improvements. • 141 improvements met criteria and passed First Level Screening. 37 of the 141 improvements were not analyzed as part of the Second Level Screening. These improvements were identified as already being incorporated into other efforts, such as Kitsap Transit’s Long Range Plan, or were similar to other improvements and therefore evaluated together. After further discussions with the CSB, it was determined the remaining improvements, such as adding additional entry points to NBK-BR, were infeasible. Descriptions of the individual improvements as well as detailed First Level Screening results are included in Appendix I. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-3 Table 6-1. Improvements Included in All Alternatives PROJECT CODE PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPECTED BENEFITS C1 Improve SR 3/Kitsap Way interchange: update signals or replace with roundabouts at ramp terminals Intersection improvements would improve vehicle mobility and safety. C26 Traffic Management Center This improvement would improve vehicle mobility and safety by providing the City with additional flexibility to modify notification signs about closures, dynamic speed signs if used, and provide travel time information. C27 Variable message signs This information would improve parking by installing signs to indicate parking availability in Downtown or at new remote parking. C29 Build projects proposed in SR 303 Corridor Study Projects along SR 303 would improve GP and transit mobility, safety, and active transportation, which would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. C35 Adaptive signal timing at all signalized intersections Intersection improvements would improve vehicle mobility and safety. C38 Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan (City of Bremerton 2022) Improvements would improve vehicle and pedestrian and bicycle safety. T6 More bus routes to NBK-BR Increased transit frequency would improve transit mobility and encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. E1 Education/marketing campaign for Bremerton residents and NBK-BR employees about transportation options, including bicycle storage and routes, vanpools, Worker/Driver Bus program (guaranteed ride home, easy to change routes, real-time tracking app, can be used by non-NBK-BR employees), and parking options. Improvements would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. E5 Education/marketing campaign to increase number of NBK-BR employees commuting from Seattle (reverse commute) Improvements would encourage NBK-BR employees to travel from Seattle, improving congestion in Downtown E7 Transportation Liaison at NBK-BR to help new hires and staff find best commuter option for them Improvements would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. PM2 Revisit on-street parking management strategies, including permit programs and paid parking in Downtown Permit-only zones would improve parking by limiting parking to only those that have a permit and would make enforcement easier. PM3 Establish a transportation management association A transportation management association is typically a nonprofit established as a public/private partnership with funding primarily from major employers. Funding is used to support expansion of commuter transportation options as alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles through education, programs, and incentives. CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to NBK-BR Telework allows people to work from home and use the internet or phone for their meetings, which would reduce the number of people traveling to Downtown and improve congestion. CTR3 Incentives to ride transit Incentives like citation forgiveness for smart commuter registration and 1 month of activity would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income Reduced fare would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-4 PROJECT CODE PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPECTED BENEFITS CTR5 Provide incentives for mode shift away from single-occupancy vehicles for residents of neighborhoods along SR 303 Incentives could include subsidized bus passes, free bus zones, or incentives such as shower facilities for bicyclists and childcare options from employers that do not provide free parking. CTR8 Collocate worker/driver stops with origins (daycares, schools, etc.) Improvements to transit would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. CTR11 Improve technology to make the worker/ driver program more efficient Improvements to transit would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. CTR12 Partner with Port Orchard to incentivize foot-ferry ridership Improvements to transit would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes Improvements would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. O9 Enforcement at at-capacity or over-capacity park and rides Maintaining park and ride parking spaces for people using transit would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. O10 Make Callow area more livable – get NBK-BR employees to live near NBK Improving a neighborhood adjacent to NBK-BR would encourage NBK-BR employees to live next to NBK-BR and commute by walking. O12 Keep worker/driver system map more up to date Improvements to transit would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. O16 More shelters at transit stops with lighting Improvements to transit would encourage mode shift from driving alone and improve congestion in Downtown. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-5 The three Build Alternatives are described below and are shown in detail in Appendix J. The proposed active transportation improvements were evaluated separately from the three Build Alternatives and are also shown in Appendix J. Support Parking Alternative This alternative assumes the City continues to pursue population and employment growth and supports the current parking system used today. This alternative would result in higher levels of traffic coming into Downtown, which would be accompanied by roadway capacity improvements needed to accommodate that growth. The key projects included in the Support Parking Alternative are as follows: • Capacity improvements along Kitsap Way and Burwell Street (C1, C32, C39) • 6th Street and 11th Street Road Diets (C24) • Expand parking at strategic locations Downtown (PC13, PC14, PC16) • HOV lane along northbound SR 304 (C16) • NBK-BR gate improvements to decrease queuing on City streets (B4) Relocate Parking Alternative This alternative assumes a larger portion of commuters would use transit to access Downtown and NBKBR. This alternative includes new or expanded park and ride facilities, repurposing City parking areas to be mixed use, new parking policies, and increased parking enforcement. This alternative would result in lower levels of GP traffic coming into Downtown and would be accompanied by transit improvements and livability improvements that take advantage of the decreased traffic demand. The key projects included in the Relocate Parking Alternative are as follows: • Park and rides to encourage mode shift to transit (PC3, PC4, PC5, PC6, PC17) • 6th Street and 11th Street Road Diets (C24) • NBK-BR gate improvements for better multimodal access (T22) • Transit lane along westbound Kitsap Way (C7) • Parking policies to discourage commuter vehicles in Downtown (PM4, PM14) Add Base Parking Alternative This alternative assumes that all NBK-BR employees would have access to current or new parking on Base. This alternative includes expanded parking, a shuttle to transport employees from on-installation parking, and increased parking enforcement Downtown to ensure the on-installation parking would be used. This alternative would result in a change in travel patterns Downtown from current local parking to on-installation parking on the west end of NBK-BR and would be accompanied by roadway capacity improvements. Downtown surface parking owned by the City may be repurposed to mixed use development. The key projects included in the Add Base Parking Alternative are as follows: • Parking within base gates (B7) • NBK-BR gate improvements to add capacity (B3) • Capacity improvements along Kitsap Way and Burwell Street (C6, C8, C10, C32) • Base transit improvements to move people from parking areas to work areas (T17, T19) • HOV lane along northbound SR 304 (C16) • Parking policies to discourage parking in Downtown (PM4, PM7, PM9, PM10) CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-6 Second Level Screening Second Level Screening Metrics The Second Level Screening was a more quantitative analysis that measured each alternative’s performance. Each alternative was measured according to the following metrics and compared to the other alternatives. For Second Level Screening, alternatives were evaluated for Year 2050. • Travel Times: Alternatives were evaluated for AM and PM peak direction travel times along seven major corridors. Travel times were taken from the Synchro and Sidra models for both GP traffic and transit. • Travel Time Reliability: Alternatives were evaluated for reliability of the peak direction travel times based on Federal Highway Administration travel time reliability equations. • Mobility: Alternatives were evaluated for AM and PM peak direction person-hours of delay along seven major corridors. Mobility was measured by travel speed, traffic volumes, and vehicle occupancy for both GP traffic and transit. • Safety: Alternatives were evaluated for number of overall crashes and serious injury and fatal crashes based on crash modification factors. • Active Transportation: Alternatives were evaluated for size of walk/bike sheds, number of high quality travel choices, and improvement to bicycle level of traffic stress or pedestrian enhancement. • Economic Vitality: Alternatives were evaluated for benefits to economic investment of each individual project. • Parking: Alternatives were evaluated for parking utilization, parking violations in Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods, City parking revenue, City parking enforcement technology, accessibility to parking for NBK-BR workers, and impacts to the “Bremerton Shuffle.” • Base Accessibility: Alternatives were qualitatively evaluated for their ability to improve efficiency of entry points, walkable housing options, multimodal access, and simplicity of access. • Livability: Alternatives were qualitatively evaluated for their ability to improve multimodal connectivity, parking for businesses, walkable housing options, and health (improving physical health and reducing carbon emission by providing additional options to safely use active transportation modes). Additional information on the Second Level Screening metrics is available in the Screening and Evaluation Methodology Memo in Appendix H. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-7 However, several projects showed clear benefits under all Build Alternatives, including: • Intelligent signal systems for all major commuter corridors. • Active transportation improvements that will encourage more active transportation trips to/ from work. • Improvements proposed by the SR 303 Corridor Study. • Safety improvements. The Support Parking Alternative and Build Parking Alternative both included roadway capacity projects and assumed traffic volumes increase into Downtown Bremerton along with forecasted increases in future population and employment growth. The Relocate Parking Alternative included more transit and active transportation supportive projects and assumed fewer cars coming into Downtown Bremerton as growth occurs. As shown in Figure 6-1, the Support Parking Alternative would provide the most benefit to safety while having some negative impact on surface parking and land use impacts. The Relocate Parking Alternative would provide the most benefit to safety, parking, and livability. The Add Base Parking Alternative would provide the most benefit to mobility and safety while having some negative impacts on City parking revenue. Detailed Second Level Screening results are included in Appendix K. Because all three Build Alternatives would provide benefits in different ways, the individual improvements were further evaluated through a cost-benefit analysis. A parking analysis was also completed to help in the development of a preliminary Preferred Alternative. These are discussed in the following sections. Second Level Screening Results The No Build Alternative and each Build Alternative were evaluated according to the performance metrics and assigned a score between −1 and 3, with −1 generally being worse than Future No Build Conditions and 3 being the largest improvement compared to Future No Build Conditions. A summary of the scoring is shown in Figure 6-1, the legend for which is shown in the right. For Second Level Screening, each Build Alternative was evaluated as a package of improvements. It was intended that, following Second Level Screening, individual improvements that performed well according to the performance metrics could be incorporated into the Preferred Alternative, regardless of which Build Alternative it was originally assigned to. Results of the Build Alternative analysis indicated that no one alternative showed improvements to all the metrics and two metrics were often at odds: base accessibility and livability. Projects that would improve base accessibility, such as added roadway capacity, were often incompatible with projects that would improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety. Projects that would improve livability, such as road re-channelization to accommodate bikes and pedestrians, were incompatible with projects that do not reduce vehicles coming into Bremerton. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-8 Travel times (GP and transit) Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit) Average Score Person hours of delay - general purpose Person hours of delay - Transit Average Score Number of overall crashes Number of serious injury and fatal crashes Average Score Number of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&Rs under low stress conditions Number of high-quality travel choices in the study area Safe and Comfortable Walking and Biking Options Average Score Parking utilization Parking violations City parking revenue City parking enforcement Accessibility to parking for Base workers Tracking the "Bremerton Shuffle" Surface parking/land use impacts Average Score Base Accessibility: Improve Base accessibility for NBK-BR workers. Livability: Improve overall livability for Bremerton residents. Parking: Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user-friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods. Active Transportation: Improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone. Mobility: Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods. Safety: Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes. Travel Times and Reliability: Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable. Support Parking Alternative Study Goal Area Performance Measures Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative Figure 6-1. Second Level Screening Results Summary CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-9 Cost-Benefit Analysis A cost-benefit analysis was completed to further evaluate the proposed roadway capacity improvements. For each improvement, a benefit cost was compared to the project cost to calculate the benefit-cost ratio. A positive benefit-cost ratio means that the benefits of the improvement outweigh the cost to implement it, while a negative benefit-cost ratio means that the project cost outweighs the benefits of the improvement. The planning-level project cost estimates for Year 2021 were created using the methodology discussed in Section 7 Benefit cost was calculated based on the following: • Change in annual cost of person-delay: Additional travel time along each travel time corridor was converted from PM peak hour to annual by applying a daily factor for an approximate 250 working days a year. The monetized value of “all purpose” travel time savings used in this benefit-cost analysis was obtained from the 2021 USDOT Benefit- Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs. • Change in annual cost of crashes: The change in crashes for each level of crash severity was estimated using crash modification factors. The monetized values attributed to the reduction of each crash severity were obtained from the 2021 USDOT Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs. Some improvements that had a negative benefit- cost ratio had a positive change in annual cost of crashes but a negative change in annual cost of person-delay. Improvements like road diets, installing medians, and installing roundabouts on high-volume roads would have a positive impact on safety while worsening traffic operations. The improvements with the highest benefit-cost ratios were projects that would have a positive impact on both safety and traffic operations with a low project cost, like adaptive signal timing and transit signal priority. The cost-benefit analysis is available in Appendix L. Parking Strategy Through Second Level Screening and the cost- benefit analysis, the following conclusions were made in relation to parking strategies: • A single parking garage (as evaluated in the Add Base Parking Alternative) on NBK-BR to accommodate all of the NBK-BR employees who currently drive to work is not feasible. • Building multiple off-site parking lots to accommodate all of the NBK-BR employees who currently drive to work is not desirable. • A combination of parking strategies from all three Build Alternatives is needed to balance livability and accessibility to NBK-BR. Parking Analysis The mode splits, origins of commuter trips, distribution of NBK-BR employees work locations within NBK-BR, and existing parking within Downtown and NBK-BR were evaluated to develop assumptions about current parking habits and future ability to relocate parking and switch modes. Based on this evaluation, it is assumed that 8,500 total NBK-BR employees currently park Downtown and walk into NBK-BR. This equates to approximately 6,300 vehicles that park outside the gate, as some employees carpool or use vanpools. Of those 8,500 employees, it is assumed that 3,630 total NBK-BR vehicles would relocate to parking lots outside of Downtown and travel into Downtown via transit or active transportation. This assumption is based on expected vehicle relocation that could occur with implementation of parking management strategies proposed as part of the Relocate Parking Alternative. The breakdown of where these 3,630 vehicles would relocate from is as follows: • 380 vehicles from Downtown on-street parking • 1,500 vehicles from residential on-street parking • 1,500 vehicles from Downtown surface lots • 250 from residential garages and lots The existing P&R capacity and occupancy were evaluated to develop assumptions about where additional parking may be needed. Of the vehicles that would relocate to parking lots outside of Downtown, it is estimated that 45 percent are CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 6-10 traveling from the south via Charleston Boulevard (SR 304), 30 percent are traveling from the north via SR 303, and 25 percent are traveling from the west via Kitsap Way. Based on this estimated demand and existing occupancy at the park and rides, 1,240 stalls would be needed south of Downtown, 800 stalls would be needed north of Downtown, and 680 stalls would be needed west of Downtown. 7. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-1 7. Preferred Alternative The preliminary Preferred Alternative was developed by processing the findings of the Second Level Screening analysis, defining a broad vision for the City, and selecting projects based on this vision and the cost-benefit analysis and parking analysis discussed in Section 6. The study team analyzed the preliminary Preferred Alternative using the same evaluation metrics as Second Level Screening then sought feedback on the preliminary Preferred Alternative from the public, the CSB, City Council, and NBK-BR before identifying a final Preferred Alternative. Preliminary Preferred Alternative The study team presented the findings of the Second Level Screening analysis to City Council in June 2022. The study team shared that none of the three Build Alternatives showed improvements for all the evaluation metrics used in the analysis and that, in particular, there was tension between base accessibility and livability. Defining a vision for the City, with guidance from the City Council, was important to establish because the vision determined what recommended projects and strategies would make up the Preferred Alternative. The three Build Alternatives can be grouped into two broad visions for the City. A comparison of the two visions is shown below. LIVABILITY CENTERED VISION (ASSUMES FEWER CARS COMING INTO DOWNTOWN BREMERTON) VS. CAPACITY CENTERED VISION (ASSUMES MORE CARS COMING INTO DOWNTOWN BREMERTON) Success measured by improvements to Bremerton’s livability and economic vitality vs.Success measured by improvements to travel time for commuters during peak hours Growth addressed by strategies that reduce the number of cars on the roads vs.Growth addressed with road capacity projects Mode shift assumptions are more aggressive and are driven by transit and policy/operations projects vs.Mode shift assumptions are conservative Requires interagency cooperation to be effective vs.Most improvements are capital projects led by City of Bremerton CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-2 Preliminary Preferred Alternative Analysis Results To ensure the preliminary Preferred Alternative would meet the study goals and provide benefits, it was analyzed according to the same performance metrics that were used in Second Level Screening. The results are summarized in Figure 7-1. The preliminary Preferred Alternative would provide the most benefit to GP and transit travel times, GP mobility, safety, parking, and livability. The preliminary Preferred Alternative would also provide some benefit to travel time reliability, active transportation, and base accessibility. Detailed Preferred Alternative analysis results are included in Appendix M. Planning-Level Cost Estimates Cost ranges were estimated for each capital project. These cost ranges were estimated based on preliminary design layouts and planning-level cost estimates. These cost ranges were not used in the Second Level Screening process but were developed to facilitate the development of the Preferred Alternative and support the City in their pursuit of funding to construct the Preferred Alternative at various stages. Cost estimates for each project are shown in Appendix O. A benefit of a capacity-centered vision would be less dependence on interagency cooperations. However, large road capacity projects are costly, disruptive, and will require more right-of-way. Additionally, roadway capacity projects can be hard to fund and may be infeasible due to environmental constraints. Parking constraints under a capacity-centered vision will remain and may worsen as growth increases density in downtown Bremerton. Benefits of a livability-centered vision include improved walking and bicycling experiences, reduced commuter parking in neighborhoods, increased available parking for businesses, a greater likelihood of achieving mode shift goals that thereby reduce congestion and improving travel times, and finally, consistency with City plans to increase density downtown and improve economic vitality. Challenges of a livability centered vision include the need for significant coordination between agencies, and costs for building more parking (such as multilevel park and rides) could be high. The City Council voiced strong support for a livability-centered vision for the JCTP project. Additionally, community leaders from the Community Sounding Board supported the livability centered vision. NBK-BR voiced concerns about base accessibility and asked that a livability centered vision balance accessibility needs. The study team moved forward with creating a preliminary preferred alternative based on all feedback gathered. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-3 Travel times (GP and transit) Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit) Average Score Person hours of delay - general purpose Person hours of delay - Transit Average Score Number of overall crashes Number of serious injury and fatal crashes Average Score Number of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&Rs under low stress conditions Number of high-quality travel choices in the study area Safe and Comfortable Walking and Biking Options Average Score Parking utilization Parking violations City parking revenue City parking enforcement Accessibility to parking for Base workers Tracking the "Bremerton Shuffle" Surface parking/land use impacts Average Score Base Accessibility: Improve Base accessibility for NBK-BR workers. Livability: Improve overall livability for Bremerton residents. Preferred Alternative Parking: Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user-friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods. Active Transportation: Improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone. Mobility: Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods. Safety: Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes. Travel Times and Reliability: Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable. Study Goal Area Performance Measures Figure 7-1. Preferred Alternative Analysis Results Summary CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-4 elements of the preliminary Preferred Alternative and the feedback received from the CSB and online open house. Meeting with Navy and Shipyard Finally, prior to finalizing the Preferred Alternative, the study team met with Navy and Shipyard staff in February 2023. The key feedback from NBK-BR was that lighting upgrades are desired as part of design projects, further coordination is needed on the Jackson Park bicycle route, a flyover ramp from SR 3 southbound to Charleston Boulevard (SR 304) should be considered, and there are concerns over the 6th Street and Naval Avenue road diets. The input collected at these four events led to the following additional analysis and refinements to the Preferred Alternative: • Additional analysis of the existing queue spillback from the Naval gate paired with the proposed 6th Street and Naval Avenue road diets was conducted to confirm the feasibility of the road diet. The term “road diet” was also changed to “re-channelization” based on feedback from the CSB. • It was recommended that NBK-BR review the need for a new ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 (Charleston Blvd) as part of upcoming planning efforts for Bremerton Waterfront Infrastructure Improvements at PSNS and IMF. • A new active transportation project on 1st Street between Callow Avenue and Naval Avenue was added to highlight active transportation improvements near NBK-BR. • Several park and ride projects were revised to align with the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan and feedback from Kitsap County about not building new structured parking. • Language for several project descriptions was revised based on CSB and NBK-BR input. The Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure 7-2 below and described in the next section in Table 8-1. Feedback on Preliminary Preferred Alternative The study team solicited input on the preliminary Preferred Alternative through several events in the fall of 2022. CSB Presentation At the presentation of the preliminary Preferred Alternative to the CSB in September 2022, the study team heard the following key feedback: • Building more structured parking on NBK-BR will be difficult due to DOD funding constraints. • Kitsap Transit is moving toward smaller P&Rs in mixed-use centers instead of big lots, and building new P&Rs with structured parking are not consistent with Kitsap Transit’s long-range plans and goals. • New structured parking is also not consistent with Kitsap County’s land use plans. • Housing and housing affordability may impact the project. • More incentives are needed to increase transit and worker/driver ridership. In an effort to reduce the number of vehicle trips, increased housing density surrounding NBK-BR could be a potential strategy to promote transit, bicycle transportation, and walkability in addition to addressing housing affordability in Downtown Bremerton. • NBK-BR is concerned about potential traffic impacts from the proposed 6th Street and Naval Avenue road diets and the existing queue spillback from the Naval gate during the morning commute. Online Open House Following the Online Open House in October 2022, the study team received feedback that was in support of the plan, especially related to pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Also, concerns about how the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) will impact traffic in the near term were expressed. Public Works Committee presentation The study team presented on the status of the JCTP to the City Public Works Committee in October 2022. The presentation included information on key CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-5 Final Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative was chosen through a collaborative process that included the public, the CSB, City Council, NBK-BR, and the study team. The final outcome is the result of an alternatives analysis approach that outlines performance-based needs and reasonable solutions that meet the needs at the right time. The Preferred Alternative is made up of several improvements that address the study goals and the existing and future needs. The themes of the Preferred Alternative include the following: • Build active transportation projects that facilitate modal shift for commute trips to Downtown and NBK-BR. • Add parking in strategic locations outside Downtown. • Develop and implement parking policies that improve and reduce NBK-BR commuter parking in Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. • Build transit capacity and reliability. • Encourage mode shift using Downtown parking strategies, education, and employer incentives. • Improve inbound capacity at NBK-BR gates to minimize local roadway congestion and improve air quality. The Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure 7-2. 7-6 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 0 ½¼ MilesN P & R Preferred Alternative Sheet 1 of 3 Preferred Alternative Sheet 1 of 3 W H E A T O N W A Y SHERIDAN RD 11TH STPINE RDWHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST RIDDELL RD SR 3 SYLVAN WAY SR 16 BAY ST ( S R 1 6 6 )CHARLESTON BLVDHIGH AVESR 3LYLE AVEMcWILLIAMS RD PORT ORCHARD BLVDS H O R E WOOD DRLEB O BLVD BEACH DR KITSAP WAY (SR 310) BURWELL ST (SR 304) City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton 5-Minute Walkshed 10-Minute Walkshed Active Transportation Projects in Improvement C29 (projects proposed in SR 303 study) NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Roadway Improvement Proposed Bicycle Improvements Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service/ Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CTR - Programs to encourage mode shift, AT - Active Transportation, O - Other PM2 Implement permit only parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to and surrounding NBK-BR PM3 Establish a transportation management association. This is typically a non-proﬁ t established as a public/private partnership with funding primarily from major employers. Funding is used to support expansion of commuter transportation options as alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles through education, programs, and incentives. C14 Study need for a new o -ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 as part of the Navy’s planning for any future Base modiﬁ cations that triggers this project C26 Tra c Management Center that includes IT infrastructure to support adaptive signals (e.g. Cloud based technology) C31 Pedestrian/bike improvements within 5 minute walkshed of park and rides or transit hubs C35 Adaptive signal timing at 19 signalized intersections along Kitsap Way, 6th St, and 11th St C38 Support Burwell Street adaptive signal system (project part of 2022 Strategic Road Safety Plan) T6 More bus routes and greater frequency (10-15 minute headways) to NBK-BR T8 Shuttle service between Park & Rides and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency) CTR3 Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker Driver Bus program by making changes to reimbursement process and easing use requirements CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income CTR11 Improve technology to make the NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker Driver Bus program more e cient CTR12 Study increased foot-ferry capacity between Bremerton and Port Orchard to align with Kitsap Transit’s Long Range Transit Plan O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to Base System-Level Improvements (Not Depicted in Map Set) AT5 Within the 10-minute walksheds of base gates, upgrade and/or add sidewalks; upgrade marked and unmarked crossings to be ADA compliant. AT14 Support planning e orts for SR 3 in Gorst PC4 Build projects in Kitsap Transit’s Long Range Plan that provide a reliable non-auto travel mode such as new circulator route in Bremerton, new express bus service between Tacoma and Bremerton, high capacity transit on SR 303, new on-demand ride zones in Bremerton, multimodal hubs, and additional park and ride lots. New Parking Park & Ride Improvement Base Gate Improvement Signal Improvement Roundabout Bicycle Improvement Combined Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement P&R CITY OF BREMERTON Description ID Improvement Type Build projects proposed in SR 303 Corridor Study Build park and rides in Kitsap Transit’s Long Range Plan at the Puget Sound Industrial Center and in South Kitsap; look for opportunities to add parking beyond planned parking stalls C29 PC3 Preferred Alternative Sheet 1 of 3 Figure 7-2. Preferred Alternative 7-7 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 15TH ST 15TH ST 11TH ST 6TH ST WARREN AVE (SR 303)16TH T 13TH ST PARK AVESHELDONB L V D KITSAP WAY (SR 3 10 ) 12TH ST PARK AVEEVA CIFICAP4TH STNAVALAVEVENETA AVE2ND S TWASHINGTON AVEELIZABETH AVEHIGH AVELINCOLN AVEEVA ETIREUGRAMEVA YAWDAORBNCAMBRIANAVEN WYCOFF AVE5TH STN MONTGOMERY AVES CALLOW AVEMANETTE BRIDGE STATE AVE6TH ST CITY OF BREMERTON Preferred Alternative Sheet 2 of 3 N 0 600300 Feet City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Roadway Improvement 10-Minute Walkshed 5-Minute Walkshed Active Transportation Projects in Improvement C29 (projects proposed in SR 303 study) Proposed Bicycle Improvements Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy CTR - Programs to encourage mode shift, AT - Active Transportation, O - Other Base Gate Improvement Park & Ride Improvement P & R Roundabout New Parking Signal Improvement Bicycle Improvement Combined Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement BURWELL ST (SR 304) Description ID Improvement Type Add “all-walk” pedestrian phase Convert signal to roundabout Naval Ave Road Re- channelization 6th St Road Re-channelization Construct mobility hubConstruct bike laneSupport Kitsap Transit’s redevelopment of the Gateway Park & Ride Add a shared-use path Support pedestrian crossing improvements (project part of 2022 Strategic Road Safety Plan) Support pedestrian safety treatments (project part of 2022 Strategic Road Safety Plan) Improve or manage input at NBK-BR in the AM peak to decrease queueing Open gate during both peak hours Implement paid on-street parking in the downtown subarea C20 C41 C40 C24 AT2AT55AT1 AT15B3 B18 PM15 C38 C38 Install secure covered bike parking AT19 Figure 7-2. Preferred Alternative (continued) 7-8 CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan S NATIONAL AVE1ST STNNATIONALAVE 3RD AVECORBET DROYSTERBAY AVES CHARLESTON AVERODGERS ST W ARSENALWAYMAR IN E D R KITSAP WAY (SR 310)N LAFAYETTE AVEN MARION AVEUNIONAVE21ST ST 19TH STJACKSONDR S SUMMIT AVES CAMBRIAN AVEMONROE ST 11TH ST BREMERTON BLVD1ST ST 6TH ST ROOSEVELTBLVDEPHINNEYBAY DR 9TH ST S LAFAYETTE AVEMORGAN RDBAY V ISTA BL V D EVA NOIRAM S5TH ST 13TH ST KELLY RD W WERNER RD ADELEAVEAUT OC E N T E R WA Y ROCKYPOINT RDNW17TH ST 20TH ST 1ST ST O ST CHARLESTON BLVD24TH ST CHARLOTTE AVEETHAN CTLOXIE EAGANS BLVDN OYSTER BAY AVESUNDOWN DR BRUENNAVEAUTO C ENT E RBLV D SINCLAI R W A Y WILBERT AVESR 3 FORDAVENW 18TH ST SHARTFORDAVES SUMMIT AVE17TH ST N WYCOFF AVETIMES AVEBERTHA AVEL OWERMARIN E D R 6THST N CHARLOTTE AVEDORA AVEEVA NAIRBMAC NSDORAAVESR3SMARINEDRS MARION AVEKEAN BLVD CHARLESTON BLVDPreferred Alternative Sheet 3 of 3 P & R 0 0.20.1 MilesN CITY OF BREMERTON City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Roadway Improvement Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CTR - Programs to encourage mode shift, AT - Active Transportation, O - Other Base Gate Improvement Park & Ride Improvement P & R Roundabout New Parking Signal Improvement Combined Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement Active Transportation Projects in Improvement C29 (projects proposed in SR 303 study) Proposed Bicycle Improvements Bicycle Improvement 10-Minute Walkshed 5-Minute Walkshed Description ID Improvement Type Build the park and rides outlined in the Kitsap Transit’s Long Range Plan north of Bremerton and the West Bremerton Transit/Park and Ride at Auto Center Way Build intersection improvements as recommended by the West Kitsap Way study Convert stop sign and signal to roundabouts Improve sidewalks west of Charleston Boulevard Maximize the e cient use of parking stalls on installation and construct additional parking PC6 C1 C2 AT27 B7 Add bike facility on Shorewood Drive AT48 Figure 7-2. Preferred Alternative (continued) CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-9 Ongoing and Early Actions The projects identified in the Preferred Alternative will follow and build upon projects that are already underway and should continue. These projects include the following: • Education for the general public and NBK-BR on the non-auto commuting options available, including vanpool, carpool, transit, Worker/Driver Bus program, and active transportation. • Maintain and improve management of incoming traffic at the NBK-BR gates, including additional officers to check credentials. • Maintain and expand teleworking options for NBK-BR and other employees commuting to Downtown Bremerton. • Implementation of recommendations from the City of Bremerton Parking Study (City of Bremerton 2017), including prioritizing certain parking areas, discouraging the “Bremerton Shuffle,” and increasing enforcement. • Improve street lighting in Downtown Bremerton to provide a more comfortable environment for active transportation users. • Increase density in Downtown Bremerton through land use changes. Recommended Parking Policies The City of Bremerton Parking Study (City of Bremerton 2017) and this study identified the need for the City to actively manage parking Downtown to meet the City goals and vision of increased livability in Downtown. The City should focus on enforcement and management of the parking system, including increasing options for drivers to switch to other modes, such a walking, biking, or transit as they travel to and from Downtown. In addition, updates are recommended for some of the current City parking regulations contained in the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC). The recommended parking policies are described below. More information on the projects, including implementation steps, is included in the project one- pagers in Appendix O. Implement permit-only parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to and surrounding NBK-BR (PM2) Bremerton currently maintains a residential permit parking program in neighborhoods near Downtown that have a high demand for commuter parking. Permits are available to residents at no cost, and parking for non-permit holders is typically restricted to 2 hours, although time limits vary. The regulations for the permit parking program are contained in BMC 10.10.040. Enforcement has improved significantly in recent years due to technology investments by the City, but it remains challenging, and commuter parking impacts still exist and, in some cases, have shifted to other parts of the City. Permit only zones would limit parking to only those who have a residential permit and their guests and would make enforcement easier because it would not require verifying compliance with time limits. Permit only zones are currently authorized by BMC 10.10.040(e) but may not be authorized by petition. Permit only zones may only be created, deleted, or modified by the City Council. The parking code should be modified to allow for permit-only zones by petition and require input from the neighborhood residents regarding the desirability of a permit-only zone prior to enactment. Nonresidential zone permits limit parking to only permit holders and, in some cases, short-term parking by non-permit holders. Nonresidential zones are typically in areas that are primarily business oriented. Nonresidential permit zones are authorized in BMC 10.10.30 and may be established by the Director of Public Works following a finding that the “change is in the best interest of the community and will improve the health, safety, and welfare of the community” or by the City Council. The current code lacks details about the conditions that would warrant the establishment of a nonresidential zone or the type of nonresidential zone where permits may be appropriate. The City should specifically prohibit nonresidential zones in the Downtown subarea, where customer and visitor access should be prioritized so that long-term parking by employees, commuters, and businesses occurs elsewhere, such as in off-street facilities. Time limits and/or paid parking are better solutions in commercial areas to CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-10 restrict commuter parking unless there is a need and desire for employees to park on the street for longer periods of time (e.g., 4 hours or more). Establish a transportation management association (PM3) A transportation management association (TMA) is typically a collaborative effort among some combination of cities, public agencies, major institutions, and major employers to collectively address transportation issues in a localized area. TMAs can also be primarily employer driven, either by a single major employer or a group of employers. TMAs are listed in the BMC in the CTR regulations in BMC 10.20, but there is not much detail on how TMAs are encouraged as a CTR strategy. Compared to other parking strategies, the establishment of a TMA will require a higher level of coordination and interest from organizations outside of the City. TMAs are often nonprofits that are controlled by their members and function as public-private partnerships. TMAs provide transportation demand management services within their boundary and can provide a wide range of services, such as marketing, commuter incentives, parking management, transit enhancements, and micromobility. Once established, TMAs can generate revenue beyond member contributions and through their programs. Implement paid on-street parking in the Downtown subarea (PM15) Downtown Bremerton has been impacted by commuter parking for many years. Downtown Bremerton has many assets, including local retail and restaurants, a connection to the waterfront, residences, cultural uses, and parks and open spaces. Access to Downtown and, in particular, use of on- street parking should be prioritized for customers and visitors, with longer-term parking, such as for employees and residents, occurring off-street. To minimize the impacts of long-term parking and enhance access to Downtown for customers and visitors, the City should move forward with paid on-street parking using an asset-lite strategy, mobile payment, and demand-based pricing. Modern technology, such as mobile payment, has revolutionized the parking industry and allows cities to implement paid parking at relatively minimal cost and without the use of expensive hardware. Mobile payment companies will provide the up-front technology, setup, and parking signs to the City at relatively little cost. The City is typically responsible for installing the signage through the Public Works Department. A license plate-based payment system will allow for integration with the City’s existing enforcement technology and the use of license plate readers for real-time enforcement against violations (i.e., it does not require virtual chalking). The mobile payment systems also provide other ways to pay, such as calling an 800 number, using a website, or paying at a local business if they do not have a mobile phone. The City could consider installing a few parking kiosks for payments, but it is likely not necessary if partnerships with local businesses can be developed. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 7-11 The parking technology system allows for integration and management of the City’s permit programs for both on- and off-street parking as well as the collection of routine parking data to inform pricing. The City should implement a demand-based pricing program that varies rates by periods of demand. Demand-based pricing can vary by season, monthly, daily, or hourly. Under demand-based pricing, rates are set higher at periods of peak demand and lower or potentially free at times of low demand. Rates can be preprogrammed to adjust and can easily be modified over time as demand changes. Rates are ultimately set to manage parking demand and ensure access to Downtown and not to achieve a certain revenue target. Demand-based pricing gives parking users options for when they choose to travel to Downtown, such as to take advantage of free parking or, at high-demand times, to be able to find parking at a reasonable cost. Parking revenue generated should first pay for management and maintenance of the parking system. However, if revenues exceed the management and maintenance costs, the City should consider investing the revenue back into the Downtown. This strategy is known as a parking benefit district and can significantly improve the Downtown, such as supporting capital projects, marketing, the maintenance of streets and public spaces, lighting, and public art. Parking benefit districts can transform downtowns by providing a consistent revenue stream for improvements and maintenance while creating visible benefits from parking management. Other Considerations Per the Coordination with Military Installations section of VISION 2050 (PSRC 2020), “while military installations are not subject to local, regional, or state plans and regulations, PSRC recognizes the relationship between regional growth patterns and military installations, and the importance of military employment and personnel in all aspects of regional planning.” In an effort to reduce the number of vehicle trips, the JCTP effort has identified increased housing density surrounding NBK-BR as a potential strategy to promote transit, bicycle transportation, and walkability. Future transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements should be prioritized in areas that provide linkages between high-density housing in Bremerton and NBK-BR access points. With the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update, when evaluating how to achieve population growth targets identified in VISION 2050 (PSRC 2020), the City should consider strategies to increase housing density in areas surrounding NBK-BR. Further coordination with NBK-BR and local stakeholders should take place at that time to ensure any such proposal is consistent with City planning policies, NBK-BR security objectives, Kitsap Transit services, neighborhood compatibility, and outcomes identified in the JCTP. There is a parking garage in Downtown located at 4th Street and Park Avenue that has approximately 960 parking stalls dedicated to NBK-BR civilians. Zoning in Downtown allows this exclusive use of the parking garage by NBK-BR. While this plan does not recommend new publicly owned parking structures in Downtown it does not preclude a private structure where zoning allows such. The DOD is in the process of completing the SIOP for PSNS. SIOP’s mission is “to execute the Navy’s once- in-a-century investment to reconfigure, modernize and optimize our four aging Naval Shipyards into new modern facilities that will serve this Nation into the future.” The Navy’s four public shipyards, which include PSNS, “need substantial recapitalization and reconfiguration in order to improve the timely return of ships and submarines back to the fleet following maintenance and modernization” (NAVSEA 2023). As part of SIOP, the Navy is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of constructing a new dry dock and associated waterfront infrastructure improvements at PSNS & IMF (see Section 9.3) Per PSRC MultiCounty Planning Policy (MPP-T-19), the City must design transportation programs and projects to support the Downtown Regional Growth Center and High-Capacity Transit Station Areas. This includes areas within 1/2 mile of the ferry terminal property, and within 1/4 mile of future High-Capacity Transit Station Areas (specific sites Downtown TBD). 8. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 8-1 8. Implementation Plan The Preferred Alternative includes a mix of capital projects and policy-based projects that address existing and future needs related to GP traffic, transit, active transportation, and parking. These projects were evaluated to determine the project phasing and implementation order. The Preferred Alternative improvements were first divided into groups based on the type of project (capital or policy-based) and the agency that has the ownership or ability to lead the project. These groups include the following: • City of Bremerton capital projects (CC) • City of Bremerton policy projects (CP) • NBK-BR capital projects (BC) • NBK-BR policy projects (BP) • Kitsap Transit capital projects (KC) • Kitsap Transit policy projects (KP) • Washington State capital projects (WC) • Washington State policy projects (WP) Each project was scored based on the following four criteria. For each criterion, a score of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned. These scores were added up for a maximum score of 12. The criteria are described below. • City Goals: This criterion assessed how well the project met the City’s goals for improving livability in Bremerton and improving accessibility to NBK-BR. A score of 3 was assigned to projects that would improve both Livability and Base Accessibility, a score of 2 was assigned to projects that would only improve Livability, and a score of 1 was assigned to projects that would only improve Base Accessibility. To be consistent with the City’s overall vision of the Preferred Alternative being “Livability Centered” versus “Capacity Centered,” a higher score was given to projects within the Preferred Alternative that will improve livability. • Cost Level: This criterion assessed the cost level of the project. These cost levels were estimated based on preliminary design layouts and planning-level cost estimates. A score of 3 was assigned to a project that would be a low cost (less than $500,000), a score of 2 was assigned to a project that would be medium cost (between $500,000 and $5 million), and a score of 1 was assigned to a project that would be high cost (greater than $5 million). • Ease of Implementation: This criterion assessed how difficult it would be to construct the project based on limitations such as other City project timelines and acquiring right-of-way. A score of 3 was assigned to projects that could be implemented within 6 years, a score of 2 was assigned to projects that could be implemented in 6 to 20 years, and a score of 1 was assigned to projects that could be implemented in 20 to 30 years. Six years correlates to the timeline for the City TIP, and 20 years correlates to the to the timeline for the City Comprehensive Plan. The horizon year for this planning study is 30 years. • Funding: This criterion assessed how easily funding would be acquired. A score of 3 was assigned to projects for which funding is already available, a score of 2 was assigned to projects for which funding sources could be identified and easily secured, and a score of 1 was assigned to projects for which funding sources could not be easily identified. The total scores assigned to each project were used as a baseline for grouping projects into phases. Early phases include projects that will provide much- needed benefits at lower costs, such as signal timing changes, or projects that can be easily implemented because they are “shovel ready,” such as the Naval Avenue re-channelization. These projects were prioritized based on how well the project met the study goals, the estimated cost level, the ease of implementation, and potential funding. The horizon year for the JCTP traffic analysis was 2050. The Preferred Alternative project phases are not scheduled for specific years, but it is anticipated that all projects will be constructed over the next 30 years. The proposed project phases for this study are suggestions and may be updated as the projects move towards design and implementation stages. Additionally, the order of the project phases may be altered during coordination with other jurisdictions, as conditions change in CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 8-2 the study area, or as new funding sources become available. A summary of the proposed project phasing is shown in Table 8-1 and the phasing matrix is available in Appendix N. The proposed project phases are also documented in project one-pagers that provide detailed information on the included improvements, benefits, issues, risks, and estimated cost ranges. The project one-pagers are included in Appendix O. The table is organized by project time frame and owner, with the projects listed in order of priority for completion for each owner. This does not represent an exact timeline for implementation because each project will be dependent on many other actions, including funding and permitting, and some might require additional analysis, design, and environmental review. Because there are four different owners included in this Preferred Alternative, continued coordination and collaboration between the agencies will be necessary for successful delivery of the Preferred Alternative. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 8-3 Table 8-1. Preferred Alternative Project Phasing PHASE PROJECT ID1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OWNER AGENCY Short-Term Projects (0 to 6 years) CC-1 C40 Naval Ave Road Re-channelization – revises lane configuration on Naval Ave to include a 2-way center turn lane and bike lanes City of Bremerton CC-2 C24 6th St Road Re-channelization – revises lane configuration on 6th St to include a 2-way center turn lane and bike lanes City of Bremerton CC-3 AT15 Add a shared-use path on south side of 1st St between Naval Ave and Callow Ave City of Bremerton CC-4 AT5 Within the 10-minute walksheds of base gates, upgrade and/or add sidewalks; upgrade marked and unmarked crossings to be ADA compliant City of Bremerton CC-5 C20 Change signal timing to include all-way pedestrian phase at State St/Burwell St, Park Ave/Burwell St, and Pacific Ave/Burwell St intersections City of Bremerton CC-5 C35 Adaptive signal timing at 19 signalized intersections along Kitsap Way, 6th St, and 11th St City of Bremerton CC-6 C38 Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan (City of Bremerton 2022). Includes adaptive signal timing along Burwell St and pedestrian crossing treatments at 6th St/Hewitt Ave and Burwell St/Washington Ave City of Bremerton CC-7 AT48 Add bicycle facilities on Shorewood Dr to connect to Kitsap Way and to downtown Bremerton. Navy should consider improving path from Grays Harbor Court to Shorewood Dr to provide connection for Jackson Park to City facilities City of Bremerton CC-8 C31 Pedestrian/bicycle improvements within 5-minute walkshed of park and rides or transit hubs (existing and proposed)City of Bremerton CC-9 AT27 Improve the sidewalk conditions in the neighborhood west of Charleston Blvd City of Bremerton CP-1 AT1 Support Kitsap Transit’s redevelopment of the Gateway Park and Ride property located at 6th St and Montgomery Ave in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Charleston Area-wide Planning Study City of Bremerton BC-1 AT19 Install secure covered bicycle parking inside NBK-BR, PSNS, and outside gates NBK-BR BC-2 B3 Improve or manage vehicle input at NBK-BR gates in the AM peak to decrease queuing on City streets NBK-BR BC-3 B18 Allow input at Montgomery gate during AM peak hours and allow output during PM peak hours NBK-BR BC-4 C14 Study the need for a new off-ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 as part of the Navy’s planning for any future NBK-BR modifications that triggers this project NBK-BR BP-1 CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to DOD employees NBK-BR BP-2 CTR3 Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker/Driver Bus program by making changes to improve reimbursement process that ease use requirements NBK-BR KP-1 CTR11 Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker/Driver Bus program by using technology and active management to optimize routes and by adding “late” routes and/or alternative shift routes Kitsap Transit KP-2 CTR12 Study increased foot-ferry capacity between Bremerton and Port Orchard to align with the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan Kitsap Transit KP-3 CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income Kitsap Transit WP-1 O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes Washington State Patrol WP-2 AT14 Support planning efforts for SR 3 in Gorst Washington State Patrol Mid-Term Projects (6 to 20 years) CC-10 AT2 Construct a mobility hub at the southwest corner of Park Ave and 4th St for first/last mile connections City of Bremerton CC-10 AT55 Construct bike lanes on Park Ave from 4th St to 6th St City of Bremerton CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 8-4 PHASE PROJECT ID1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OWNER AGENCY CC-11 C26 Traffic Management Center that includes IT infrastructure to support adaptive signals (e.g., cloud-based technology)City of Bremerton CC-12 C41 Convert signal at Naval Ave/6th St to a roundabout City of Bremerton CP-2 PM15 Implement paid on-street parking in the downtown subarea City of Bremerton CP-3 PM2 Implement permit-only parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to and surrounding NBK-BR City of Bremerton KC-1 PC6 Build the park and rides, outlined in the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan, including the Silverdale Park and Ride north of Bremerton and the West Bremerton Transit Center/ Park and Ride at Auto Center Way Kitsap Transit KC-2 PC4 Build projects in the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan that provide a reliable non-auto travel mode, such as new circulator route in Bremerton, new express bus service between Tacoma and Bremerton, high-capacity transit on SR 303, new on-demand ride zones in Bremerton, multimodal hubs, and additional park and ride lots Kitsap Transit KC-3 PC3 Build park and rides in the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan at the Puget Sound Industrial Center and in South Kitsap; look for opportunities to add parking beyond planned 520 parking stalls City of Bremerton KP-4 T8 Shuttle service between park and rides and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency)Kitsap Transit KP-5 T6 More bus routes and greater frequency (10–15 minute headways) to NBK-BR, including early morning and late evening routes Kitsap Transit KP-6 PM3 Establish a transportation management association. This is typically a nonprofit established as a public-private partnership with funding primarily from major employers. Funding is used to support expansion of commuter transportation options as alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles through education, programs, and incentives. Kitsap Transit WC-1 C1 Build intersection improvements at SR 3/Kitsap Way as recommended by the West Kitsap Way study WSDOT WC-2 C2 Convert stop sign and signals at SR 3/W Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange to roundabouts WSDOT Long-Term Projects (20+ years) CC-13 C29 Build projects proposed in SR 303 Corridor Study (City of Bremerton 2021) – prioritize capacity projects including roundabouts and BAT lane City of Bremerton BC-5 B7 Maximize the efficient use of parking stalls on NBK-BR installation and construct additional parking NBK-BR 1 PC - New/Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B: Projects on Base, T - Transit Service/Frequency, AT - Active Transportation, PM - Parking Management/Policy, CTR - Programs/Technologies/Incentives to Encourage Mode Shift, O - Other CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 8-5 Potential Funding The projects identified in the Preferred Alternative will require funding. There are multiple funding options available, depending on the type of project. Table 8-2 includes list of potential funding sources for JCTP projects. Table 8-2. Potential Funding Sources for JCTP Projects GRANT SOURCE PROJECT ELIGIBILITY Rebuild America Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity Grants Many types including road projects and public transportation projects Safe Streets and Roads for All – Implementation Grants Projects identified in a Safety Action Plan to address roadway safety problems Transportation Alternatives Program Community-based transportation improvements, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities PSRC Regional and Kitsap Countywide Competitive grants Projects that support development of centers and the transportation corridors that serve them Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Variety of transportation projects and programs, including roadways, bridges, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, transit and other investments Highway Safety Improvement Program Projects that reduce fatal and serious injury crashes, following Washington state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the City’s local road safety plan. WSDOT’s Safe Routes to School and Pedestrian/ Bicyclist programs Projects for bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, crossing improvements for people who walk and bicycle, speed management, and education and encouragement about walking and bicycling. Defense Access Roads program, jointly administered by DOD’s Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency and the Federal Highway Administration Defense Access Roads program allows the Secretary of Transportation to provide for the construction and maintenance of roads that give access to military installations and other defense-related properties and for the replacement of highways that are closed to the public due to closures or restrictions at military installations and defense industry sites. It is the only federal mechanism that allows for the military to fund improvements to roads outside of an installation. DOD’s Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program Infrastructure projects located on a military installation; projects must support military installations, be owned by state or local government, be endorsed by local installation commander, and be construction-ready. Washington State’s Defense Community Compatibility Account Projects that promote land use compatibility between communities and military installations, such as projects that improve or enhance aspects of the local economy, environment, or quality of life impacted by the presence of military activities. 9. NEXT STEPS CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 9-1 9. Next Steps The goal of the JCTP study is to create a responsive and actionable plan to examine existing and future needs for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR and ensure Bremerton’s growth will not impede NBK- BR missions, which are critical to our Nation’s military readiness. The plan defines solutions to improve multimodal mobility, outline parking strategies, and enhance Bremerton’s livability. Success of this plan will ensure NBK-BR meets its missions for national defense while supporting Bremerton’s long-range growth needs. The Preferred Alternative provides a prioritized set of projects to address the needs identified in the Existing Conditions and Future No Build Conditions analysis. The proposed phasing plan includes short- term, mid-term, and longterm improvements that will provide benefits to both the City and NBK-BR. Using the JCTP, the City, NBK-BR, the County, and WSDOT will: • Work with Kitsap Transit to plan for transit accessibility improvements, transit service improvements, and transit infrastructure improvements within the study area. • Continue to monitor needs in the study area to ensure each proposed project meets those needs. • Continue to engage the public to refine and improve the proposed projects. • Identify and apply for various funding sources for each project. • Continue to consider construction phasing packages based on needs and funding availability. • Include and prioritize the recommended projects in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Program Ongoing Study Roles and Responsibilities It is anticipated that the CSB members for this study will continue to coordinate during the design and implementation stages for the proposed improvements. Coordination between the City of Bremerton, NBK-BR, Kitsap Transit, Kitsap County, and WSDOT will continue as funding sources are identified and pursued. Ongoing Public Involvement Just as public involvement helped shape the outcome of the JCTP, ongoing public involvement will be critical to future planning, design, and development. Consistent with the community engagement for this study, future phases of study will need to actively provide opportunities for the public and study area community members to provide comments and input. All community engagement during the design and implementation stages will need to closely follow National Environmental Policy Act and Washington State Environmental Policy Act procedures related to public involvement. CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 9-2 Future Upcoming Studies Additional studies in the study area are being completed now or in the near future. West Kitsap Way Planning Study The City was awarded a federal Surface Transportation Program grant via PSRC to conduct a transportation planning study for Kitsap Way from SR 3 to Chico Way. West Kitsap Way has concrete pavement in poor condition and lacks pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The study will determine, through a public process, updated cross sections and 5-10 percent level of design for the future reconstruction of the roadway. City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan 2024 The City of Bremerton is currently in the process of updating their Comprehensive Plan. Bremerton’s Comprehensive Plan provides guidance for how the City will grow and develop over the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan is the centerpiece of local planning efforts and relays the goals and policies that will guide the day-to-day decisions of elected officials and local government staff. The City Comprehensive Plan update is scheduled to be completed by December 2024. The Preferred Alternative projects included in the JCTP will be reviewed to included and prioritized in the Comprehensive Plan and integrated into the Transportation Improvement Program. Bremerton Waterfront Infrastructure Improvements Environmental Impact Statement The Navy is preparing an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of a new dry dock and associated waterfront infrastructure improvements at PSNS & IMF at NBK- BR. Much of the infrastructure at PSNS & IMF dates back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, and it was designed primarily for building and maintaining ship classes that are no longer part of the modern naval fleet. Other than construction of Dry Dock 6 in the early 1960s, the shipyard has had few major infrastructure updates since the mid-1900s, which has led to significant production inefficiencies for maintaining current ships. The shipyard lacks the necessary capability to accommodate new and future classes of ships. The Proposed Action includes construction of new dry dock, seismic upgrades, demolition of Hammerhead Crane, and modification, demolition and/or replacement of other piers, wharves, quay walls, buildings, and utilities at shipyard. The draft EIS is currently being prepared and the Final EIS is expected in the spring of 2024. SR 3/Gorst Area – Widening Project As part of the $16.8 billion Move Ahead Washington Transportation Package passed by the Washington State Legislature in 2021, $74.3 million was allocated to the SR 3/Gorst Area widening project to fund the initial design and environmental work. The planning efforts for this project are expected to get under way in late 2023 or early 2024. 10. REFERENCES CITY OF BREMERTON Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan 10-1 10. References City of Bremerton. 2007. Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. Prepared by Parametrix and Alta Planning & Design. https://www.bremertonwa. gov/DocumentCenter/View /840/Non-Motorized- Transportation-Plan-PDF. City of Bremerton. 2012. Puget Sound Industrial Center – Bremerton Subarea Plan (First adopted as the South Kitsap Industrial Area Subarea Plan). Bremerton, WA. August. City of Bremerton. 2016a. City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by Ordinance 5299. Bremerton, WA. Effective June 3, 2016. City of Bremerton. 2016b. City of Bremerton ADA Transition Plan. Prepared by Al King, PE. Bremerton, WA. March 10. City of Bremerton. 2017. City of Bremerton Parking Study. Prepared for City of Bremerton by BERK Consulting, Seattle, WA. June. City of Bremerton. 2020a. Bremerton Citywide Transportation Concurrency Review. Prepared for City of Bremerton by Transportation Solutions, Inc., Redmond, WA. January 31. City of Bremerton. 2020b. Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan. Prepared for City of Bremerton by DKS Associates, Seattle, WA. February 2020. City of Bremerton. 2020c. 2021–2016 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Resolution No. 3328. July 15. City of Bremerton. 2021. SR 303 Corridor Study. Prepared for City of Bremerton and WSDOT by Parametrix, Seattle, WA. May. City of Bremerton. 2022. Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan. Prepared for City of Bremerton by DKS Associates, Seattle, WA. March. Kitsap County. 2015. Joint Land Use Study: Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Magazine Indian Island. Prepared for Kitsap County, Jefferson County, and City of Bremerton by MAKERS architecture and urban design, LLP, White & Smith, LLC, TranspoGroup, and Community Attributes. September. Kitsap County. 2016a. Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan. Adopted June 2016 with revisions through April 2020. Kitsap Transit. 2016b. Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan 2016–2036. https://www.kitsaptransit.com/uploads/ pdf/projects/2016-2036-long-range-transit-plan-without- appendices.pdf. Kitsap County. 2018. Kitsap County Non-Motorized Facility Plan. Adopted December 2, 2013; Maps Amended December 11, 2018. Kitsap County. 2020. 2021–2026 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. November 23. Kitsap Transit. 2022. Long-Range Transit Plan 2022–2042. December. https://www.kitsaptransit.com/uploads/pdf/ planning/lrtpreport_6dec2022.pdf. NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). 2016. Transit Street Design Guide: Transit Lanes and Transit Ways. https://nacto.org/publication/transit- street-design-guide/transit-lanes-transitways/. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest. 2013. Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety Study NBK Bremerton. Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest and MAKERS architecture and urban design, LLP, by TranspoGroup. June. NAVSEA (Naval Sea Systems Command). 2023. Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program: Building the Shipyards the Nation Needs. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/ Home/Shipyards/SIOP/. PSRC (Puget Sound Regional Council). 2020. VISION 2050. https://www.psrc.org/planning-2050/vision-2050. USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2021. Benefit- Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs. Office of the Secretary. February. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2012. Bremerton Economic Development Study: Kitsap and Mason Counties, Washington. US 101, SR 3 and SR 16. Final Report. Prepared by WSDOT Olympic Region, in association with H W Lochner, Inc., and EnviroIssues, Inc. March. WSDOT. 2018. SR 16, Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3, Congestion Study. Final. Prepared by WSDOT Olympic Region, Tumwater, WA. December. WSDOT. 2019. Washington State Ferries 2040 Long Range Plan. Washington State Ferries, WSDOT, Olympia, WA. January. Appendix A Project Inventory KITSAP WAY(SR310 )PINE RD11TH ST BURWELL ST (SR 304) SHERIDAN RD LEBOBL V D NE RIDDELL RD SYLVAN WAY WARREN AVE (SR 303)WHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST WHEATONWAYSR 3 MAY STCHARLESTONBLVD1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 22 2426 27 28 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 49 51 52 53 54 57 62 64 68 69 70 72 76 77 79 80 81 89 90 94 95 96 97 102 104 105 107 108 111 115 116 118 122 127 129 131 9 11 21 23 25 29 33 40 41 46 47 48 50 55 56 66 67 71 73 74 75 828384 858687 8889 100 101 103 106 109 110 114 119 120 121 123 124 125 126 128 130 132 133 134 135 136 CITY OF BREMERTON NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 BREMERTON CORESR 358 60 NEAR SR 3 / SR 16 0 1½Miles 0 ½¼MilesN Existing Conditions Potential Projects Identified in Other Plans City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Improvement Type Active Transportation Intersection Parking Policy Roadway Signal Systems Transit (Bus) Transit (Ferries) Urban Design 117113 91 9278 59 61 9998 93 65 63 (Points correspond with Project Inventory Table.) Number Year Study Project Description Type of Improvement 1 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 11th St at Callow Ave - intersection improvements Active Transportation 2 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 303/Warren Ave at 4th St - intersection improvements Active Transportation 3 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 303/Warren Ave at 5th St - intersection improvements Active Transportation 4 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 303/Warren Ave at 11th St - intersection improvements Active Transportation 5 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 303/Warren Ave at 13th St - intersection improvements Active Transportation 6 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 303/Warren Ave at 16th St - intersection improvements Active Transportation 7 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 304/Burwell St at Callow Ave - intersection improvements Active Transportation 8 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 304/Burwell St at Montgomery Ave - intersection improvements Active Transportation 9 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 304/Burwell St at State Ave - intersection improvements Active Transportation 10 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan SR 310/Kitsap Way at 11th St - intersection improvements Active Transportation 11 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 11th St (SR 310/Kitsap Way to Callow Ave) - complete sidewalk gaps Active Transportation 12 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Naval Ave (13th St to 15th St) - complete sidewalk gaps Active Transportation 13 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Manette Br (Washington Ave to Old Wheaton Way) - replace bridge to include bicycle lanes and sidewalks and/or a shared use path Active Transportation 14 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 1st St (Montgomery Ave to Naval Ave) - stripe eastbound contraflow bicycle lane; westbund bicycle travel accommodated in shared vehicle/bicycle lane Active Transportation 15 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 6th St (Callow Ave to Park Ave) - bicycle lanes Active Transportation 16 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 6th St (Park Ave to Washington Ave) - bicycle lanes Active Transportation 17 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 11th St/Washington Ave (Park Ave to Manette Bridge) - bicycle lanes Active Transportation 18 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Naval Ave (1st St to 15th St) - bicycle lanes Active Transportation 19 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 1st St (Hartford Ave to Naval Ave) - Level 1, 2, and 3 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments)Active Transportation 20 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 4th St (Olympic Ave to Washington Ave) - Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming) Active Transportation 21 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 13th St (Naval Ave to Park Ave) - Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming) Active Transportation 22 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 15th St (Lafayette Ave to High Ave) - Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming) Active Transportation 23 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan 16th St/Chester Ave (SR 303/Warren Ave to future Port Washing Narrows bike/pedestrian bridge) - Level 1 and 2 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings) Active Transportation 24 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan High Ave (5th St to 15th St) - Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming) Active Transportation 25 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Montgomery Ave (1st St to 15th St) - Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming) Active Transportation 26 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Olympic Ave/Whitney Ave (4th St to 15th St) - Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming) Active Transportation 27 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Pacific Ave (1st St to 13th St) - Level 1, 2, and 3 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments)Active Transportation 28 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Park Ave (4th St to 17th St) - Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings, intersection treatments, traffic calming) Active Transportation 29 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Washington Ave (1st St to Manette Br) - Level 1 and 2 bicycle boulevard applications (signage, pavement markings)Active Transportation 30 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Naval Avenue Elem. School safe routes to school improvements - Inventory bicycle/pedestrian faciltiites in the Naval Avenue Elem. School walking catchment area, and identify specific deficiencies that complicate bicycylist and pedestrian travel. Design and construct infrastructure improvements, including shared use paths, neighborhood accessways, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other intersection improvements where necessary. Assign higher prioritization to projects along major bike- and walk-to-school routes. Active Transportation Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Project Inventory List Projects Shown on Map 1 Number Year Study Project Description Type of Improvement Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Project Inventory List 31 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan West Hills Elem. School safe routes to school improvements - Inventory bicycle/pedestrian faciltiites in the West Hills Elem. School walking catchment area, and identify specific deficiencies that complicate bicycylist and pedestrian travel. Design and construct infrastructure improvements, including shared use paths, neighborhood accessways, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other intersection improvements where necessary. Assign higher prioritization to projects along major bike- and walk-to-school routes. Active Transportation 32 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Bremerton High School safe routes to school improvements - Inventory bicycle/pedestrian faciltiites in the Bremerton High School walking catchment area, and identify specific deficiencies that complicate bicycylist and pedestrian travel. Design and construct infrastructure improvements, including shared use paths, neighborhood accessways, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other intersection improvements where necessary. Assign higher prioritization to projects along major bike- and walk-to-school routes. Active Transportation 33 2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan 13th St and Sylvan Way Corridors: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Treatments (Naval Ave to Park Ave)Active Transportation 34 2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan 13th St and Sylvan Way Corridors: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Treatments (Pine Rd NE to Olympus Dr NE)Active Transportation 35 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Open Space and Recreation: Town to Forest Urban Trail along Burwell Street (Forest Ridge Park to Callow Ave)Active Transportation 36 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Sheridan Road (Wheaton Way to Cherry Ave) segment improvements: pedestrian, bike, transit Active Transportation 37 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Lower Wheaton Way (Lebo Blvd to Callahan Dr) segment improvements: pedestrian, bike, transit (signature)Active Transportation 38 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Lower Wheaton Way (Callahan Dr to Sheridan Rd) segment improvements: pedestrian, bike, transit (signature)Active Transportation 39 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS New multi-use path to connect bridge to bridge-to-bridge trail (Wheaton Way to Lebo Blvd)Active Transportation 40 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS Short term: stripe climbing lane. Long term: construct protected shared use path. Other street sections may also be considered along Lower Wheaton Way (Lebo Blvd to Sheridan Rd) Active Transportation 41 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS Pedestrian oriented street designated 100' north of Lebo Blvd Active Transportation 42 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Widen Warren Avenue Bridge to include 10’ sidewalks on both sides. Manage lane widths on Warren Avenue Bridge with a minimum of 10.5'. Center barrier on Warren Avenue Bridge. Construct a 3' wide low- maintenance landscape or hardscape buffer between curb and sidewalk and widen sidewalks to 10’ on east side of SR 303 from north of 17th Street to the Warren Avenue Bridge. Update lighting on the structure for both roadway and active transportation users. Sidewalks at both north and south ends that are forward-compatible with long- term plan. Active transportation facility to connect to Lebo Boulevard on the north side of the bridge. Provide wayfinding for active transportation. Bicycle facilities south of the bridge between SR 303 and Park Avenue Active Transportation 43 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Bicycle facilities on Almira Drive from Sylvan Way to NE Riddell Road, including roadway widening and stormwater improvements Active Transportation 44 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing north of Dibb Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island Active Transportation 45 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing between 6th Street and 11th Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon signal and pedestrian refuge island. Add bus stops near mid-block crossing Active Transportation 46 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing north of Pearl Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island. Relocate bus stops to be near mid-block crossing Active Transportation 47 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing between Hollis Street and NE Riddell Road and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island. Relocate bus stops to be near mid-block crossing Active Transportation 48 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Update lane striping along SR 303 to delineate active transportation facilities. Provide wayfinding for active transportation users. Underground utilities that would otherwise be obstructions in the sidewalks. Improve striping along Callahan Drive tunnel to show active transportation facility Active Transportation 2 Number Year Study Project Description Type of Improvement Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Project Inventory List 49 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Bicycle facilities from Callahan Drive to Cherry Avenue using lower Wheaton Way, Spruce Avenue, and E 30th Street. Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing at Sheridan Road and Spruce Avenue. Bicycle facilities on Callahan Drive from SR 303 to lower Wheaton Way using existing tunnel under SR 303. Provide 10' wide sidewalks at the following locations: SR 303 to Almira Drive using NE 32nd Street through Old East Bremerton High School, connecting near Dibb Street, Wheaton Way Transit Center to Pine Road NE using NE Normandy Drive or NE Roswell Drive to access Clogston Avenue NE. Construct a paved active transportation facility from Cherry Avenue to Almira Drive. Bicycle facilities on Almira Drive from Cherry Avenue to Sylvan Way Active Transportation 50 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Underground utilities that would otherwise be obstructions in the sidewalks Active Transportation 51 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Construct a tunnel under SR 303 for an active transportation undercrossing, connecting Olympic College to east side of SR 303. Active transportation facilities on 18th Street through Olympic College to Broadway Avenue Active Transportation 52 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Arsenal Way/Patten Ave Safety Improvements - sidewalks, close sidewalk gaps, bike boulevard (scope not defined)Active Transportation 53 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Riddell Road Sidewalk Improvements - Gap project on south and north side of Riddell west of SR 303; new development to close gap on south side. East of SR 303 development will close sidewalk gap on south side of Riddell (Winco to Almira) Active Transportation 54 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Anderson Cove Sidewalks; 19th & Naval to 15th - sidewalk gap connections Active Transportation 55 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Matan & Lillian & James Sidewalk Connector; Bloomington & Olympic - sidewalk gap connections Active Transportation 56 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Washington Avenue Lower Sidewalks - replace sidewalks on Washington north of Manette Bridge; scoped to be included in Washington/Manette RAB project Active Transportation 57 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP 4th Street Landscaping Replacement/Sidewalk Repair (Quincy Square)Active Transportation 58 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3/Imperial Way - intersection improvements; add additional channelization improvements Intersection 59 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3/Sunnyslope Road - intersection improvements; install roundabout or traffic signal, based on detailed traffic study and warrants Intersection 60 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3/Sam Christopherson Interchange - construct a new interchange to grade separating the SR 3/Sam Christopherson Road intersection and widen the SR 16 Spur Intersection 61 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3/Imperial Way - Intersection improvements; additional channelization or grade seapration may be needed to meet 2030 LOS standards; Monitor traffic increases to determine when further improvements are needed Intersection 62 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Operational improvements at SR 304 and Charleston Beach Rd. intersection Intersection 63 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Optimize signal operations at SR 3 and SR 16/Sam Christopherson intersection Intersection 64 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Operational improvements at SR 304 and Farragut Ave intersection Intersection 65 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Construct roundabout at SR 3 and SR 16/Sam Christopherson intersection Intersection 66 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Approach widening at SR 304 and Farragut Ave. intersection Intersection 67 2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan 11th St & Callow Intersection Improvements Intersection 68 2020 Citywide Transportation Concurrency Signal timing Improvements will mitigate intersection LOS deficiencies at the following intersections: Kitsap Way (SR 310)/Marine Dr and Warren Ave (SR 303)/11th St Intersection 69 2020 Citywide Transportation Concurrency Signal timing Improvements will mitigate intersection LOS deficiencies at the following intersections: Kitsap Way (SR 310)/Marine Dr and Warren Ave (SR 303)/11th St Intersection 70 2020 Citywide Transportation Concurrency A new coordinated traffic signal or roundabout is recommended at the intersection of Loxie Eagans Blvd/SR 3 southbound ramps Intersection 71 2020 Citywide Transportation Concurrency Peak period left-turn restrictions are recommended on Chester Ave at the Burwell St (SR 304) intersection Intersection 72 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Clare/Lebo new signal Intersection 73 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Replace signal at 11th Street with a 2-lane roundabout including pedestrian crossings at all four quadrants Intersection 3 Number Year Study Project Description Type of Improvement Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Project Inventory List 74 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Construct a new roundabout intersection at Callahan Drive/Clare Avenue. Repurpose tunnel along Callahan Drive to be an active transportation undercrossing. Construct northbound business access and transit (BAT) lane from north of Warren Ave Bridge to connect with previously constructed BAT lane. Include northbound transit signal queue jump at Callahan Drive intersection. Construct 3’ wide median. Provide curb and gutter, a 6' wide low-maintenance landscape or hardscape buffer, and 10' sidewalks on both sides of SR 303 from north of Warren Avenue Bridge to Sheridan Road. Underground utilities that would otherwise be obstructions in the sidewalks Intersection 75 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Replace signal at NE Riddell Road with a roundabout including pedestrian crossings at all four quadrants Intersection 76 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Oyster Bay Avenue Improvements - roadway reconstruction including multimodal, signal replacement at Kitsap way and Oyster Bay Intersection 77 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP 15th and Corbet Intersection Improvements - safety improvements, may include all way stop and/or minor realignment (scope not defined)Intersection 78 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Cross-SKIA Connector/Analysis Area B/SR 3 - New intersection at northern terminus of extension of Cross-PSIC Connector Intersection 79 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Flexible Parking Standards Parking 80 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Wycoff Artisan/Live-work Overlay District: designate the city blocks along Wycoff Avenue north of 6th Street/Kitsap Way as the "Wycoff Artisan/Live-work Overlay District" Policy 81 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Opportunities Sites Policy 82 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Interim Uses Policy 83 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Community Stewardship and Governance Policy 84 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report District Rebranding Policy 85 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Events and Traditions Policy 86 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Site and Building Activation (interim uses/activities)Policy 87 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Comprehensive Plan Additions Policy 88 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Interim/Temporary Uses Policy 89 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report DCC Overlay (Wycoff Artisan/Live-Work Overlay District)Policy 89 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Capital Improvement Plan Additions Policy 90 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Downtown Circulation Study Policy 91 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3 Widening - widen to 4 lanes from Imperial Way to Sunnyslope Rd Roadway 92 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3 Widening - widen to 4 lanes from Sunnyslope Rd to Gorst Roadway 93 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3 Widening - eliminate lane drop on SR 16 to northbound SR 3 by extending the lane north of the railroad bridge and extend the northbound SR 3 lane for longer merge area (interim) Roadway 94 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3 Widening - widen to 6 lanes (creating one HOV lane in each direction) from Gorst to SR 304 Roadway 95 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study Extend SB SR 3 through SR 304 Interchange - extend SB SR 3 two-lanes through SR 304 interchanges and adjust SR 304 SB Ramp to merge instead of add lane Roadway 96 2012 Bremerton Economic Development Study SR 3 Widening - widen to 6 lanes (creating one HOV lane in each direction) from SR 304 to Loxie Eagans Boulevard; and maintain the northbound auxiliary lane Roadway 97 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study SR 3 PUSL from SR 304 to railroad trestle Roadway 98 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Modify lane channelization for SR 16 WB at Gorst Roadway 99 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Consolidate driveways through SR 3/SR 16 interchange area Roadway 100 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study SR 3 PUSL from railroad trestle to Gorst Roadway 101 2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan 6th St Rechannelization (N Callow Ave to Park Ave)Roadway 102 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Callow Avenue Streetscape and Festival Street segment: design and complete a streetscape enhancement plan for Callow Avenue (1st Street to 13th Street) Roadway 103 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Wycoff Avenue Streetscape: design and complete a streetscape enhancement plan for Wycoff Avenue (6th Street to 11th Street)Roadway 104 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Juniper Street (Hemlock St to Cherry Ave) frontage improvements: new street Roadway 105 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS Recommendations for all Neighborhood Streets Roadway 4 Number Year Study Project Description Type of Improvement Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Project Inventory List 106 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS Campbell (Clare Ave to Lower Wheaton Way) is to be a multi-modal right of way allowing only low speed vehicle access with additional green infrastructure Roadway 107 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Replace two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) with 3’ – 5’ wide median with breaks at intersections. Provide a median break for southbound left- turn at Old East Bremerton High School entrance. Provide southbound u-turn at Sheridan Road. Provide northbound and southbound u-turns at Sylvan Way. Provide low-maintenance landscape or hardscape buffer between curb and sidewalk at various locations Roadway 108 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Replace two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) with 3’ – 5’ wide median with breaks at intersections. Provide median break for northbound left-turn south of NE Riddell Road. Provide northbound and southbound u-turns at Hollis Street Roadway 109 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Remove center median between Burwell Street and 5th Street and replace with c-curb. Install pedestrian crossing treatment at 4th Street and 5th Street. Extend northbound left-turn lane at 6th Street Roadway 110 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Close 18th Street southbound ramp access. Extend northbound left-turn lane storage at 16th Street to 275 feet. Underground utilities that would otherwise be obstructions in the sidewalks. Complete sidewalk connection from south end of Warren Ave Bridge to existing sidewalk south of 18th Street. Widen sidewalk to 10’ on west side of SR 303 between 13th Street and Warren Avenue Bridge. Relocate northbound and southbound bus stops closer to 13th Street intersection Roadway 111 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Werner Road - Signal Improvements and Widening Roadway 112 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP West Kitsap Way Reconstruction/Rechannelization - roadway reconstruction including multimodal, roundabout at Northlake Way, and potential park and ride at NAD park Roadway 113 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Area B Collector Road - new roadway west of SR 3 at Cross PSCI- intersections Roadway 114 2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan Burwell St Adaptive Signal System (Callow Ave to Washington Ave)Signal Systems 115 2016 Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan West Bremerton Transit Center Transit (Bus) 116 2016 Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan Bremerton Transportation Center upgrade/retrofit Transit (Bus) 117 2016 Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan Bremerton Puget Sound Industrial Area park and ride Transit (Bus) 118 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Callahan Drive (Wheaton Way to Cherry Ave) frontage improvements: transit (signature) Transit (Bus) 119 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Cherry Avenue frontage improvements: transit (neighborhood) Transit (Bus) 120 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Construct northbound business access and transit (BAT) lane from 500’ south of the Callahan Drive intersection to Sylvan Way (ultimately extends north to Hollis Street). Construct a 6' wide low-maintenance landscape or hardscape buffer between curb and sidewalk and widen sidewalks to 10’ on both sides of SR 303. Underground utilities that would otherwise be obstructions in the sidewalks Transit (Bus) 121 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Construct northbound business and access transit (BAT) lane from Sylvan Way to Hollis Street where it terminates as a right-turn only lane. Construct a 6' wide low-maintenance landscape or hardscape buffer between curb and sidewalk and widen sidewalks to 10’ on both sides of SR 303. Underground utilities that would otherwise be obstructions in the sidewalks Transit (Bus) 122 2040 WSF Long Range Plan Terminal operational efficiency enhancements: the new Colman Dock Multimodal Terminal will include more bike and pedestrian connections. When preservation projects are completed, WSF should explore new ways to incorporate operational efficiencies and opportunities to encourage mode shift to transit, walking and biking at the Bremerton terminal. Transit (Ferries) 123 2040 WSF Long Range Plan this route has not reached Tier 1 Level of Service overall but experiences periods of high demand on summer and holiday weekends. WSF could consider offering reservations only for these high-demand periods. Focusing on weekends would also alleviate long lines with high volumes of recreational traffic. Transit (Ferries) 124 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Open Space and Recreation: Forest Edge along Kitsap Way Urban Design 125 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Open Space and Recreation: Charleston Triangle Pocket Park Urban Design 126 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Open Space and Recreation: Bremerton Gateway Enhancements Urban Design 127 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Open Space and Recreation: Artist Tunnel Urban Design 128 2020 Charleston Areawide Planning Report Signage and Wayfinding Urban Design 129 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Hemlock Street frontage improvements (neighborhood) Urban Design 130 2020 Eastside Village Subarea Plan Hickory Street frontage improvements (neighborhood) Urban Design 5 Number Year Study Project Description Type of Improvement Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Project Inventory List 131 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS New park with ped/bike commercial amenities and stormwater treatment Urban Design 132 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS Improve commercial frontage, public works access, and allow for shoreline viewing where feasible from ROW or park Urban Design 133 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS Signature corners with highly visible pedestrian traffic Urban Design 134 2020 Sheridan/Harris Center Final EIS Signature corners with highly visible pedestrian traffic Urban Design 135 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Bridge to Bridge Trail Wayfinding Urban Design 136 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Repair Downtown Street Standard Banner Supports Urban Design 137 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Improve opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle access to Downtown and major employment areas to alleviate parking demand.Active Transportation 138 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Add or enhance pedestrian and bicycle facilitites between Bremerton and Gorst Active Transportation 139 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Add or enhance pedestrian and bicycle facilitites between Bremerton and Port Orchard Active Transportation 140 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Green Standard Pedestrian Improvements - placeholder for annual project (green = facilities on both sides of street)Active Transportation 141 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Green Standard Bicycle Improvements - placeholder for annual project (green = facilities on both sides of street)Active Transportation 142 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Yellow Standard Pedestrian Improvements - placeholder for annual project (yellow = facilities on one side of street)Active Transportation 143 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Yellow Standard Bicycle Improvements - placeholder for annual project (yellow = facilities on one side of street)Active Transportation 144 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP North/South Corridor Bike/Ped Backbone Improvements Active Transportation 145 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP State Street Pedestrian Corridor Improvement - scope to be defined by JCTP Active Transportation 146 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Trails-12 miles of trails Active Transportation 147 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Prioritize certain parking areas for residents, customers, and employees and manage accordingly Parking 148 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Reestablish the City parking committee and develop a working group with representatives from NBK, the Shipyard, Washington State Ferries, Kitsap Transit, and others. Parking 149 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Create a new position in the City of Bremerton to manage the parking system in Bremerton including monitoring, policy, maintenance, and operations. Parking 150 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Work with Kitsap Transit to ensure parking locations and transit routing work well with the Bremerton parking system and commuter needs.Parking 151 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Charge for on-street parking in parts of Downtown to discourage the "Bremerton Shuffle" and increase access for visitor parking (in addition to the 10-hour paid spaces). Parking 152 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Eliminate 10-hour parking Downtown and convert to short-term visitor parking.Parking 153 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Discourage new employee and commuter parking facilities in Downtown unless to serve businesses in the Downtown Subarea Planning Boundary. Parking 154 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Prohibit the re-parking of vehicles throughout specific areas of Downtown.Parking 155 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Require loading vehicle permits.Parking 156 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Encourage shared parking for off-street facilities to take advantage of any underutilized parking.Parking 157 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Work with the Naval Base and Shipyard to require more long-term on- site parking.Parking 158 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Purchase a License Plate Reader (LPR) unit for use by parking enforcement throughout the City.Parking 159 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Increase parking violation fines and consequences.Parking 160 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Establish defined residential parking zones and standardize the parking restrictions within each zone.Parking 161 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Implement a residential-only permit system in residential neighborhoods mostly heavily impacted by employee and commuter parking. Parking 162 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Allow employees to purchase on-street permits and invest a portion of the proceeds back into the residential neighborhood.Parking 163 2017 Bremerton Parking Study Develop an overflow parking plan for occasional special events.Parking 164 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Citywide bicycle wayfinding signage plan - develop a citywide bicycle wayfinding signage plan identifying: appropriate locations for signs, destinations to be highlighted on each sign, and approximate distance and riding time to each destination Policy Projects Not Shown on Map 6 Number Year Study Project Description Type of Improvement Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Project Inventory List 165 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Bremerton Transportation Center Bicycle/Pedestrian Sub-Area Plan - develop a sub-area plan addressing bicycle/pedestrian circulation needs in and around the Bremerton Transportation Center Policy 166 2007 Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan Municipal Code Bicycling Parking Requirements Update - update Bremerton Municipal Code to establish bicycle parking requirements for individual land uses, and establish bicycle parking facility design requirements Policy 167 2018 SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study Develop a plan to address resiliency and redundancy, including identifying gaps in the network Policy 168 2020 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan Citywide: Systemic Roadway Departure Safety Treatments. Paved shoulders and rumble strips on Belfair Valley Rd, fixed object treatments, utility pole delineation, utility pole clear zone agreements Roadway 169 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Develop a corridor schematic from Burwell Street to NE Riddell Road using updated survey data Roadway 170 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Local Access Projects - 5.64 miles of local access road Roadway 171 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP East/West Corridor Diet (6th or 11th or Couplet) - scope to be defined by JCTP Roadway 172 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP PSNS Main Entrance - scope to be defined by JCTP Roadway 173 2020 Citywide Transportation Concurrency Additional operations and safety improvements may be achieved through implementation of adaptive signal control on one or more congested signalized corridors. Signal Systems 174 2021-2026 Bremerton TIP Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program - priority to be determined by JCTP Signal Systems 175 2016 Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan Capitalized facilities including transit centers, park and rides, maintenance buildings, operations bases and administrative offices Transit (Bus) 176 2016 Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan Bus Rapid Transit implementation Transit (Bus) 177 2021 SR 303 Corridor Study Convert northbound approach at Burwell Street to right-in right-out (RIRO). TSP and updated traffic signal equipment for active traffic management options at Burwell Street, 6th Street, 11th Street, 13th Street, 16th Street, Sheridan Road, Sylvan Way, E Broad Street, Hollis Street, and NE Riddell Road. Transit (Bus) 178 2016 Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan Passenger Only Fast Ferry Transit (Ferries) 179 2016 Kitsap Transit Long Range Transit Plan Ferry dock improvements Transit (Ferries) 180 2013 Kitsap County Non-Motorized Facility Plan 181 2015 Joint Land Use Study 7 Appendix B Community Sounding Board Meeting Presentations To the right you see Templafy taskbarwith access to your contentAre you offline?Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layoutWith Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesTToo tthhee rriigghhtt yyoou sseeee TTemmpllaaffyy taskkbbbaarrwwiitthh aacccceess to your contteennttAAre you oofffflliinnnee??CCCllliiicckk NNeeww SSlidddee iiinnnn rrrriiibbbbbbooon anndd sseelleecctt aa lllaayyoouuuttJoint Compatibility Transportation PlanCommunity Sounding Board Meeting #101/28/21 Agenda•Welcome and introductions•Project overview and goals•Roles & Responsibilities•Workplan•Public Survey•Closing01/28/20212 Introductions•Name•Jurisdiction, agency, affiliation, company•What transportation improvement in Bremerton do you feel needs the most attention and what would you do if there were no constraints?301/28/2021 Project OverviewBremerton has unique traffic and parking issues due to Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton (NBK-BR), such as:•traffic surges at shift changes•limited parking both inside and outside fence line•older infrastructure that is car focused•forecasted population growthCity and NBK-BR are partnering through a DOD grant to create a plan that will address these challenges•$750,000 grant•18 month study period401/28/2021 Project Goals•Examine existing and future need for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR•Develop solutions to resolve deficits•Evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands•Develop a prioritized implementation plan01/28/20215 Project Team Roles and Responsibilities•Provide background materials, data, and gather community input•Facilitate discussion that leads to solutions for issues identified by the Community Sounding Board•Provide the right staff at Community Sounding Board meetings to address questions and provide information•Consider Community Sounding Board input when developing solutions•Report back to Community Sounding Board on how the project team considered and addressed their input601/28/2021 CSB Member Roles and Responsibilities•Represent the interests of the public through continued participation and attendance at the CSB meetings•Reach out to constituency to express their opinions and to share project progress•Respect all CSB team members and work toward overall consent on project direction•Respect differing needs and priorities while seeking to find common ground•Provide strategic advice on project needs, strategies, context, alternatives, and outcomes•Represent your agency and keep your agency informed and engaged throughout study process701/28/2021 Workplan801/28/2021 Community Engagement9MeetingDateAgendaCSB 11/28/2021 Introductions, schedule, concurrence, surveyOpen House 2/9/2021Define project and request public inputWorkshop #1 5/25/2021 Define preliminary projectsCSB 26/10/2021 Outline issues, discuss screening, draft needs, preliminary project list, survey results, open house commentsCSB 38/12/2021 Share screening results, discuss refinements, open to discuss additional projectsOpen House 2 8/24/2021Share potential alternatives and request inputWorkshop #2 9/7/2021Refine projects, phasing, prioritizationCSB 412/2/2021 Review findings, consider preferred projectsOpen House 3 2/22/2022Share recommended alternatives and discuss phasing opportunities dependent on fundingCSB 53/3/2022 Review preferred projects, cost, phasing01/28/2021 Virtual Open HouseVirtual Open House February 9, 2021Share the date and linkGoals for the open house:•Inform the public about the project•Request their thoughts about issues/solutions•Share the schedule and future meeting times•Share how they can comment at any time01/28/202110 Public Information SurveyPre- and post-COVID travels questionsOrigins and destinations for work tripsModes of travelTravel issuesTravel solutionsDemographics01/28/202111 01/28/202112Given what we’ve shared and what you know: What transportation improvement(s) do you feel would provide the most benefit if built early? To the right you see Templafy taskbarwith access to your contentAre you offline?Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layoutWith Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesTToo tthhee rriigghhtt yyoou sseeee TTemmpllaaffyy taskkbbbaarrwwiitthh aacccceess to your contteennttAAre you oofffflliinnnee??CCCllliiicckk NNeeww SSlidddee iiinnnn rrrriiibbbbbbooon anndd sseelleecctt aa lllaayyoouuuttJoint Compatibility Transportation PlanCommunity Sounding Board Meeting #206/16/21 Agenda1. Project overview/schedule2. Public information survey results3. Project analysis and issues1.https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2a7308bb204344f8acc99f94ced7556b4. Workshop results1. Issues/Ideas5. Screening approach1. Metrics/measures2. Pairwise comparison6. Next steps06/16/20212 IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESNew / Expanded ParkingAdd park-and-ride in West Bremerton and establish frequent shuttle service between P&R and NBK-BRAdded parking outside of downtown with frequent shuttle serviceAdd more parking in Port Orchard and increase foot-ferry frequencyAdd capacity to park-and-rides at Sedgewick, Treemont and Mile HillConfirm names/locations with Ed CovielloPartner with Port of Bremerton to provide parking and run shuttles from PSICPark-and-Ride near SR 3/Kitsap Way interchangePark-and-Ride near SR 3/Loxie Eagans interchange (West Hills)Add park-and-ride locations outside of DowntownCongestion in DowntownPark-and-Ride near downtown similar to GatewayPark-and-Ride at PortPark-and-Ride in Port OrchardExpand parking through public/private partnerships. New downtown parking should be mixed-use with active street-level uses. Street-level parking does not contribute to a vibrant and walkable DowntownJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationDRAFT IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationCapacity Projects: changes in lanes, signals, intersection control, etcFix the SR 3 / 310 interchange; update signals or replace with RABsKitsap Way alternativeImprove SR 3/ Loxie Eagan interchange (poor pedestrian environment + signal/stops signs work poorly together)Design Washington Avenue/Manette Bridge RAB to accommodate/forward compatible 2050 growthCongestion / queuingReplace signals with RABs in downtownCongestion / queuingAccess management on Kitsap Way between Corbett and Oyster BayParametrix ideaAdd westbound lane on Kitsap Way at Marine Drive, and drop into double left @ NationalParametrix ideaAdd transit lane along Kitsap Way (westbound 11th to SR 3)Parametrix ideaImprove intersection operations at Naval/Burwell, includes proposed Naval Ave road dietParametrix ideaAdd a roundabout at Burwell/Naval Ave and other locations near the BaseCongestion / queuingReconfigure Callow/Burwell intersection to better serve primary movements / reduce congestionCongestion / queuingLook at ideas such as seperated movements (intersection of Build road/ramps directly from SR 3 to Charleston GateCongestion / queuingAdd capacity on SR 3, especially in southbound directionBuild a bypass to PSICAdd capacity at SR 3/SR 304 interchangeMost recent improvements added lane to SR 3 and took lane away from SR 304; crashes at merges causing delaysReversible lane of SR 3HOV lane along SR 304Dedicated transit lane along Kitsap WayDedicated transit lane through Gorst (must be paired with enforcement)BAT lanes or dedicated center lanes along future BRT corridorsPedestrian scrambles near the State St, Burwell, and Bremerton gatesDifficult crossingAdd LPI to all signalsDifficult crossingDedicated transit road from SR 3 to downtownOpticom at every signalized intersection to allow for transit to pre-emptEvaluate road diets on 6th St and 11th St to provide bike facilities.Uncomfortable biking environmentRamp meteringCongestion / queuing TSMO / ATMTraffic Management CenterCongestion / queuing TSMO / ATMVariable message signsCongestion / queuing TSMO / ATMIncident response on SR 3Required already; Build projects proposed in SR 303 studyRoadway improvements to get employees out of NBK and onto SR 3 SBSignalize intersections near potential Park-and-RidesDiffiifficDRAFTTTTTTTTTTTTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFFFFFTTTFTFTFTAFAFRARARADRDRDRDRDDDD IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationProjects on BaseMove some Naval operations (e.g. NEX) to BangorCongestion / queuingStagger shipyard shifts, especially with ferry arrivalsCongestion / queuingTDMImprove gate progression to decrease queuing in the AM peakCongestion / queuingMove gates further into the Base to reduce queuing on City streetsCongestion / queuingAdd commuter parking on BaseMore parking at NBK-BRAdd parking at NBKDemand for parking exceeds supply at NBKEnhance access to NBK from the West to reduce congestion in DowntownCongestion in DowntownDRAFT IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationTransit Service / Frequency Run KT bus service into the BaseThis occurred prior to 9-11Concentrate Worker/Driver routes along main corridorsFerry service from West SeattleChange Worker/Driver to pick up and drop off at same point to accommodate non-NBK employeesDedicated transit for uniformed NBK employeesMore bus routes to the shipyardMicrotransit to main corridors that have frequent/BRT routesShuttle service between P&Rs and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency)Downtown circulator busFerry to/from Gorst or Port OrchardPartner with Port Orchard to incentivize foot-ferry ridershipCommuter boats to cross Port Washington Narrows (examples from Thailand or Chicago)Change to minimum usage for Worker/Driver programMore driver for KT to increase frequencyCover more shift times with bus and/or Worker/Driver2 early morning busesExpand vanpool programSwitch Worker/Driver buses to vans, change frequency to more than once each directionWorker/Driver late bus (similar to sports team buses) or on-call shuttleLarger ferries or more frequency for fast ferry routes (particularly Anapolis FF)DRAFTFFFFFFFFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAAAAAATTTTFTAFAFAFAFRARADRDR IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationActive Transportation Consider a mobility hub at the Gateway P&R for first/last mile connections.Pedestrian overpass to Charleston gateActive transportation improvements at existing Park-and-Rides (pedestrian/ADA improvements, convenient/safe/well lit facilites)Create more bike lanes; remove sharrowsImprove pedestrian conditions in the downtown corePedestrian SafetyAdd reasonably spaced pedestrian crossings SafetySimilar to SDOT and other cities; need to consider complimentary actions Ped bridge from Port OrchardGrade separated crossing on Charleston Blvd. (Charleston Beach Rd? Ferragut St?)Difficult crossingCharleston BlvdAt grade crossing enhancements at Charleston Blvd & Charleston Beach RdDifficult crossing and faded paint. Charleston BlvdAt grade crossing enhancements at Charleston Blvd & Farragut St (e.g. high visibility crosswalks and other safety updates)Difficult crossing and faded paint. Charleston BlvdF&P idea - not raised during Workshop 1Stripe the crosswalk at Charleston Blvd & Rodgers St by the bus stop.Difficult crossingCharleston BlvdF&P idea - not raised during Workshop 1Grade separated crossing on State StDifficult crossingGondola from Port Orchard to Bremerton.CongestionOff-street trail from Gorst to downtown Bremerton.Uncomfortable biking environmentEstablish a safe E/W walking route along the north perimeter of the base Uncomfortable walking environment(Burwell St to Chester Ave to 1st St to Charleston Blvd), including wayfinding Upgrade pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the State St gate to establish a safe, comfortable walking route to the Base. Uncomfortable walking environment(e.g. widen and repair sidewalks, remove obstructions, etc.)Upgrade pedestrian facilities on Montgomery Ave from 6th St to 1st St to establish a safe, comfortable walking route from the Gateway P&R to the Base. Obstacles in sidewalks (light poles, etc.)(e.g. widen and repair sidewalks, remove obstructions, etc.)Inventory sidewalk obstructions/disrepair/ADA issues throughout downtown and identify priority locations for upgrades.Obstacles in sidewalks (light poles, etc.)Install bike locker parking outside (and/or inside) the State Street, Burwell, and Bremerton gates. Naval and Charleston would also benefit from bike parking, but are less of a priority due to lower pedestrian traffic.Barrier to bikingExplore pedestrian/bike upgrades near the Charleston gate to incentivize their use.Uncomfortable walking and biking environment Need to know more to flesh out this ideaExtend the planned bike facilities to provide bike access to the Charleston, Montgomery, Naval, and State gates. Uncomfortable biking environmentPlanned facilities stop around BurwellDevelop a biking map of downtown Bremerton, including how to access/navigate the Base by bike.Barrier to bikingF&P idea - not raised during Workshop 1Evaluate what planned bike facilities can be upgraded to provide more comfort (e.g. bike lane instead of sharrows, protected bike lane instead of bike lane, etc.). Do this with an eye for establishing continuous networks without gaps. (e.g. requests for providing more protection on Burwell, Warren, and 1st)Uncomfortable biking environmentcrossingicult crossingConge biking envortable walkcomfortablerom thObstaclesupgradeObseston would also benefit ngcroficuCnvialkible frolesupbstestDRAFTcrossincrosngestionngestionUncomfortable bUncomfoUncomfortUncomfUncothe Gateway the Gateway ades.ades.ton would also ton would alsFFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTFTFTAFAFAARARADRDDDD IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationImplement bike/ped improvements proposed for the SR 303 Study. Need better N/S connection for cyclists in the vicinity of Warren Ave.Uncomfortable biking environmentUpgrade Kitsap Way to be more comfortable for people walking and biking. This includes adding new crossings, upgrading existing crossings, and adding protected bike lanes.Crossings are too far apart, which makes accessing bus stops challenging, bike facilities don’t have enough protection, and there were Upgrade Charleston Blvd to be more comfortable for people walking and biking. This includes adding new crossings, upgrading existing crossings, and adding protected bike lanes. Crossings are too far apart and bike facilities don’t have enough protection. People walk to the base from the residential areas to the west Charleston BlvdAdd/upgrade sidewalks in the neighborhood west of Charleston Blvd.Uncomfortable walking environmentA lot of people are moving to this area and not many safe sidewalks.Evaluate safety enhancements at the site of the pedestrian fatality near the north side of the Base.Pedestrian safetyRemove the proposed sharrow west of Charleston Blvd - it is not feasible given terrain and cost.Provide safety enhancements at 1st & Callow, which is a dangerous crossing. Difficult CrossingCharleston BlvdPeople get stranded in the median. There have been some ped accidents. Add crossings west of State on Burwell - there are a few intersections where it's indicated that people are not allowed to cross.Difficult crossing / long block lengthsDRAFT IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationEducation / MarketingLaunch an education/marketing campaign to make sure people in Bremerton and on the Base know about what options are available to them already – where is bike storage, how do the worker-driver buses work, you can bike through the base, etcBarrier to biking, walking, and taking transit EducationIncrease communication and marketing for vanpoolsEducationEducation on worker/driver program (guaranteed ride home, easy to change routes, real time tracking app)EducationJoint marketing campaign for City or KT - education on the fact that non-NBK employees can alos use the worker/driver programEducationEducation to increase NBK worker base commuting from Seattle (reverse commute)EducationParking education program about transportation and parking optionsEducationDRAFT IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationParking Management / PolicyRequire contractors to park at a Park-and-Ride location outside of Downtown with frequent transit service to workContractors do not have access to parking at NBKRevisit on-street parking management strategies including permit programs and paid parking in DowntownBremerton Shuffle and commuter parking in residential neighborhoodsEstablish a transportation management associationRestrict new parking in Downtown (i.e. commuter parking)Commuter parking impacts on DowntownIdentify priority users for parking (i.e. commuters vs. residents/businesses)Commuter parking impacts in Downtown and residential neighborhoodsIncrease parking violation finesLack of compliance with parking management regulations impact Downtown and residential Parking cash-out for new development (including a policy change to reduce parking)Prioritize rideshare and vanpool stalls in existing facilitiesTraffic congestion in DowntownRepurpose parking lots for other travel modesCommuter permits for City-owned facilitiesDRAFT IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationPrograms/Technologies/Incentives to encourage mode shift Maintain Telework options currently available to BaseCongestion / queuingTDMNo payment for transitIncentives to ride transitReduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on incomeProvide incentives for mode shift away from SOV for residents of neighborhoods along SR 303Provide free parking for vanpoolsOperate City run rideshare programCo-locate worker/driver stops with origins (daycares, schools, etc)Affordable on-site daycareApp similar to OneBusAwayImprove technology to make the Worker/Driver program more efficientDRAFT IDEASISSUEPOSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE GROUPINGNOTESJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan - Workshop #1 Preliminary Ideas for ConsiderationOtherAlign with other planned projectsIdentify who you're designing for (have solutions meet the needs)Keep in mind growth especially through GorstCongestion / queuingUse the Navy's rail line to move peoplePedestrian SafetyReduce posted speedsBetter enforcement of HOV lanesFunnel drivers to desired arterials through design/traffic calmingSeparate truck traffic from GP traffic; provide load/unload zones and restrict time of day Enforcement at at-capacity or over-capacity P&RsMake Callow area more liveable - get NBK employees with live near NBKIncentivize development with sidewalks and bike lane improvements near developable landKeep Worker/Driver system map more up-to-dateMore TOD at P&RsKayaking from Port OrchardOff-board payment for transitMore shelters at transit stops with lightingDRAFTFFFFFFFFFFFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFTTFTFTAFAFAFA To the right you see Templafy taskbarwith access to your contentAre you offline?Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layoutWith Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesTToo tthhee rriigghhtt yyoou sseeee TTemmpllaaffyy taskkbbbaarrwwiitthh aacccceess to your contteennttAAre you oofffflliinnnee??CCCllliiicckk NNeeww SSlidddee iiinnnn rrrriiibbbbbbooon anndd sseelleecctt aa lllaayyoouuuttJoint Compatibility Transportation PlanCommunity Sounding Board Meeting #310/26/21 AgendaWelcomeProject overview and goalsScheduleAlternativesScreeningNext stepsClosing10/26/20212 Project Goals•Examine existing and future needs for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR•Develop solutions to resolve deficits•Evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands•Develop a prioritized implementation plan10/26/20213 ScheduleAug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April410/26/2021JanMayJulyOHOHCSB #3WK #2CSB #4CSB #5CSB #1WK #1CSB #2IntroWorkplanIssuesIdeasUpdateNew IdeasAlternativesNew IdeasScreeningRefine & combineDraft PACostPrioritiesPAPhasingWe are here 510/26/2021Alternatives•Support current parking•Relocate parking onto Base•Relocate parking outside of CBD Parking Demand Assumptions610/26/2021DAILY # of people working on BaseMaximum Parking Demand (# of vehicles)Parking Supply (# of stalls)Additional Parking Needed (# of stalls)# 23,000 14,535 7,460 7,075Assumptions:•All shifts + •Two ships•Day + swing shift only•Based on mode split data from public surveys and WSDOT CTR•6,500 stalls on Base•960 stalls at Building 1105•Assumes spot for every vehiclePM PEAK HOUR# of people leaving Base# of people walking off Base to parking downtown# of vehicles parked downtown (for people working on Base)Assumed # of vehicles relocated during Peak Hours# 8,050 2,090 1,755 1,000Assumptions:Assume 35% of Daily # leaves during PM peakAssumes those who use SOV, Carpool or vanpool onlyBased on mode split data from public surveys and WSDOT CTR data for Base# of vehicles relocated in Relocate Parking and Add Base Parking Alternatives Traffic Redistribution Assumptions•Graphic showing traffic redistribution710/26/2021 Alternative Diagrams810/26/2021 Second Level Screening•Screening Criteria•Rating•Final scores910/26/2021 Second Level Screening CriteriaStudy Goal AreaPerformance MeasuresDesired OutcomeTravel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make them more predictablexTravel times and travel time reliability along key corridors in/out of downtown(Kitsap Way, 11thSt, 6thSt, Burwell St,SR 304 & SR 303)xReduce travel times (GP and transit)xImprove reliability (GP and transit)Mobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goodsxNumber of people moved during peak periods along key corridorsxIncrease person throughput Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashesxNumber of overall crashesxNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesxReduce overall crash ratesxReduce number of serious injury and fatal crashes1010/26/2021 Second Level Screening CriteriaStudy Goal AreaPerformance MeasuresDesired OutcomeActive Transportation:Improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alonexNumber of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&Rs under low stress conditionsxIncrease the number of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&RsxNumber of high-quality travel choices in the study area.xImprove the number of high-quality travel choices (e.g. additional transit service, multimodal network gap closure, connections between 2 or more modes)xSafe and comfortable walking and biking optionsxProvide a right-of-way enhancement to improve the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) score (e.g. protected bike lane, multi-use path) or a pedestrian enhancement (e.g. sidewalk widening, new sidewalk, sidewalk buffer, more ADA compliant facilities) to improve the pedestrian realm.1110/26/2021 Second Level Screening CriteriaStudy Goal Area Performance MeasuresDesired OutcomeParking:Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user-friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods.xParking utilizationxIncrease availability of parking or transit options or,xIncrease consistency between parking regulations and parking turnover or durationxNumber of parking violations in Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods xImprove compliance with City parking regulations including time limits and permit zonesxAmount of City parking revenuexAdequate parking revenue to fund management of the parking system and ensure compliancexUse of parking enforcement technologyxIncrease the use technology to enhance parking enforcement that results in improved access to Downtown and major employers while maintain quality of life in neighborhoodsxAccessibility of parking for shipyard workersxIncrease parking available for shipyard workers in locations that do not increase congestion and impact livabilityxNumber of vehicles doing the “Bremerton Shuffle" (i.e., the movement of vehicles)xDecrease in number vehicles being moved to evade time limits1210/26/2021 Second Level Screening - Rating•For each performance measure, improvements scored on the range shown below •Most study goals include more than one performance measure. Individual scores rolled up into one overall score for each study goal.1310/26/2021Make conditions worse compared to 2050 No BuildNone/minimal change to conditions compared to 2050 No BuildProject improves conditions compared to 2050 No BuildProject creates even greater improvements compared to 2050 No Build Second Level Screening Results – Travel Time/Mobility/Safety1410/26/2021Support Parking AlternativeRelocate Parking AlternativeAdd Base Parking AlternativeTravel times (GP and transit)Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit)Average ScorePerson hours of delay - general purposePerson hours of delay - TransitAverage ScoreNumber of overall crashesNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesAverage ScorePerformance compared to 2050 No Build AlternativeStudy Goal AreaPerformance MeasuresMobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes.Travel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable. 1510/26/2021Support Parking Alternative: Scores the worst for Travel Times & Reliability / best for SafetySupport Parking – Travel Time/Mobility/Safety ResultsImpacts of Proposed ImprovementsPerformance compared to 2050 No Build AlternativeTravel times (GP and transit) - Travel times in AM peak improve due to RABs on Kitsap Way; NB HOV lane on Charleston; - Travel times in PM peak hour get worse due to 6th/11th road dietTravel Time Reliability (GP and transit) Travel time reliability improves in AM peak hour; gets significantly worse in PM peak due to 6th/11th road dietAverage ScoreRoad diet on 6th/11th causes signficant impacts during PM peak hourPerson hours of delay - general purposePerson hours of delay - TransitAverage ScoreImpacts in PM peak hour cancel out improvements in AM Peak hourNumber of overall crashesNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesAverage ScoreProposed improvements expected to significantly improve safetyRoad diet on 6th Street and 11th Street provide the largest reduction in overall crashes, and serious injury/fatal crashes. Roundabouts (SR 303, Burwell and Kitsap Way) and adaptive signal timing provide additional crash reductions.With minimal changes to volumes in this alternative, impacts to general purpose and transit mobility are similar to those associated with travel time.Mobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes.Travel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable.Support Parking AlternativeStudy Goal Area Performance Measures 1610/26/2021Relocate Parking Alternative: Scores the worst for Mobility / best for SafetyRelocate Parking – Travel Time/Mobility/Safety ResultsImpacts of Proposed ImprovementsPerformance compared to 2050 No Build AlternativeTravel times (GP and transit)Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit)Average Score Improvements to system travel times outweighed by reduced capacity from 6th/11th road diet in PM peak hourPerson hours of delay - general purposeGeneral purpose mobility improves during the AM and PM peak hour due to reduced general purpose vehicle volumes.Person hours of delay - TransitTransit use expected to increase but bus service/number of stops assumed to remain the sameAverage ScoreWithout express service, transit mobility will decrease despite increased ridershipNumber of overall crashesNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesAverage ScoreProposed improvements expected to significantly improve safetyRoad diet on 6th Street and 11th Street provide the largest reduction in overall crashes, and serious injury/fatal crashes. Roundabouts (SR 303) and adaptive signal timing provide additional crash reductions.* Assumes ~1,000 vehicles park outside downtown and take transit inbound in AM peak / outbound in PM peak* GP and Transit travel times improve on most corridors due to reduced volumes* However, improvements to system travel times outweighed by reduced capacity from 6th/11th road diet in PM peak hour* Improvements to transit system travel time associated with BAT lanes along Kitsap Way and SR 303 are outweighed by impacts from 6th/11th road diet in PM peak hourRelocate Parking AlternativeMobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes.Travel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable.Study Goal AreaPerformance Measures Add Base Parking – Travel Time/Mobility/Safety Results1710/26/2021Add Base Parking Alternative: Scores the best for Travel Time *AND* for Mobility Impacts of Proposed ImprovementsPerformance compared to 2050 No Build AlternativeTravel times (GP and transit)Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit)Average ScoreTravel time and reliablity improvements seen in both AM and PM peak hoursPerson hours of delay - general purpose* Added WB capacity on Kitsap Way (11th to National) has large impact on mobilityPerson hours of delay - Transit* Full capacity on 6th/11th helps improve mobilityAverage ScoreFull capacity on 6th/11th helps improves mobilityNumber of overall crashesNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesAverage ScoreImprovements in serious injury/fatal crashes* Assumes ~1,000 vehicles park currently parking downtown instead park at Base garage near Charleston Gate* Reduction in approximately 700 vehicles from downtown core during peak hours improves travel times* Maintaining capacity on 6th/11th and adding capacity on Burwell + reductions in volumes improves travel times* Travel time and reliablity improvements seen in both AM and PM peak hours * Roundabouts (SR 303) and adaptive signal timing result in a reduction of overall crashes and the number of serious injury and fatal crashes.Add Base Parking AlternativeMobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes.Travel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable.Study Goal AreaPerformance Measures Results –Travel time/mobility summaryAlternativePositiveNegativeSupport ParkingјRoundabouts on Kitsap WayјRoundabouts on Burwell StјNB HOV lane on Charleston BlvdјAdded lane on Burwell StјProjects in SR 303 studyљCapacity reductions from 6th/11th St road diet cancels out system wide travel time improvements in PM peak hourљGrade-separated intersection at Callow Ave/Burwell likely not feasibleRelocate ParkingјReduction in downtown volumesјMost signal timing changesјWB BAT lane on Kitsap WayјTSP at signalized intersectionsјProjects in SR 303 studyљCapacity reductions from 6th/11th St road diet cancels out system wide travel time improvements in PM peak hourAdd Base ParkingјReduction in downtown volumesјWB GP lane on Kitsap WayјMost signal timing changesјNB HOV lane on Charleston BlvdјAdded lane on Burwell StјProjects in SR 303 studyљNot feasible to build all parking demand on Base1810/26/2021 Second Level Screening Results – Active Transportation1910/26/2021Number of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&Rs under low stress conditionsNumber of high-quality travel choices in the study areaSafe and Comfortable Walking and Biking OptionsAverage ScoreAdd Base Parking AlternativeStudy Goal Area Performance MeasuresActive Transportation:Improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone.Support Parking AlternativeRelocate Parking Alternative•Active transportation projects are essential for safe and efficient connectivity between where people are parking and their final destinations.•Active transportation is not a differentiator between alternatives. •Active transportation projects will be prioritized for the Preferred Alternative. Second Level Screening Results - Parking2010/26/2021Parking utilizationParking violationsCity parking revenueCity parking enforcementAccessibility to parking for Base workersTracking the "Bremerton Shuffle"Surface parking/land use impactsAverage ScoreParking:Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user-friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods.Support Parking AlternativeAdd Base Parking AlternativeStudy Goal Area Performance MeasuresRelocate Parking Alternative Second Level Screening Results - Parking•Criteria focused on commuter parking •Parking policies are:•Driven by City leadership•Influence livability•Very interchangeable•Need to consider the desired outcome2110/26/2021 Base Accessibility & Livability22Downtown LivabilityBase AccessibilityGoalFocus is area most affected by operations of NBK-BR and PSNS (south of 11thStreet between Charleston Blvd and the Port of Washington Narrows)For continued NBK-BR and PSNS operations, accessibility to the base and PSNS must be maintained or improved as part of this projectMetrics•Transit mobility•Safety•Active Transportation•Parking •Ability to improve multi-modal connectivity•Efficiency of mobility•Improvement to health•Travel times•Options for access (bus, bike, walk) •Efficiency of entry points •Simplicity of access •Availability of transportation options for return trip•Efficiency during national emergency10/26/2021 Base Accessibility & Livability23BBasee Accessibility: Improve Base accessibility for NBK-BR workers.LLivability: Improve overall livability for Bremerton residents.Support Parking AlternativeStudy Goal AreaRelocate Parking AlternativeAdd Base Parking Alternative10/26/2021 Economic Analysis2410/26/2021 •Roundabouts along Kitsap Way significantly reduce delays and queueing •Signal timing optimization reduces delay and queues throughout the system•Road diets on 6th and 11th Street impact mobility even if parking is relocated outside of downtown•Roundabout at Callow/Burwell likely more feasible than grade separated intersection2510/26/2021What did we learn? What did we learn?•Building enough parking to meet Base demand isn’t feasible•7,100 stall garage = 17 story building•For reference: Building 1105 (4th/Park ) has 960 parking stalls•Building more parking in multiple locations outside of downtown is a benefit.2610/26/2021 To be effective, any relocation in parking requires the following:•Parking policies that strongly encourage change in behavior•Express Bus service between relocated parking and Base to see benefits•Safe and connected active transportation system2710/26/2021What did we learn? Reasonable Combinations Whiteboard•Additional parking outside downtown at multiple locations•Express bus service / shuttle service •Capacity improvements on Kitsap Way and Burwell Street•Road diet on 6th Street only•Projects recommended from SR 303 Corridor Study•NB HOV lane on Charleston Blvd•Active transportation projects2810/26/2021 Next Steps•Identify and analyze a Preferred Alternative•Develop preliminary cost ranges•Prioritize modal projects 2910/26/2021 To the right you see Templafy taskbarwith access to your contentAre you offline?Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layoutWith Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesTToo tthhee rriigghhtt yyoou sseeee TTemmpllaaffyy taskkbbbaarrwwiitthh aacccceess to your contteennttAAre you oofffflliinnnee??CCCllliiicckk NNeeww SSlidddee iiinnnn rrrriiibbbbbbooon anndd sseelleecctt aa lllaayyoouuuttJoint Compatibility Transportation PlanCommunity Sounding Board Meeting #4 06/01/22 Presentation Goals•Brief recap of the JCTP project and progress•Review traffic and parking issues the project seeks to resolve•Outline challenges in resolving issues •Discuss potential visions for the final outcome206/01/2022 Project OverviewBremerton has unique traffic and parking issues due to Naval Base Kitsap -Bremerton (NBK-BR), such as:•traffic surges at shift changes•limited parking both inside and outside fence line•limited multimodal opportunities•forecasted population growthCity and NBK-BR are partnering through a DOD grant to create a plan that will address these challenges•$750,000 Project•18 month study periodOutyear for this study is 2050306/01/2022 Project Goals•Examine existing and future need for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR•Develop solutions to resolve deficits•Evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands•Develop a prioritized implementation plan406/01/2022 Issues Evaluation Criteria•Crash History•Current traffic conditions model•Planned improvements•Future job and population growth estimates •Transit Routes & Park and Rides•Worker Driver Routes•Parking conditions•Bike/ped conditions•Survey regarding travel habits5IssuesPublic InputDataPlansPublicInput06/01/2022 Existing Conditions – NBK-BR Impact6•60% of traffic coming into Bremerton during the peak period is attributed to NBK-BR•6300+ NBK-BR commuter vehicles park outside of the gates during the peak period and over 10,000 pedestrians enter the shipyard gates each day•2017 Parking Study confirmed large numbers of commuter vehicles are parking illegally in Downtown and in neighborhoods.•Parking behaviors are entrenched, and many people are willing to risk tickets•Surface level parking lots in Downtown are not the highest and best use of the property •Vehicle queues at base entry gates sometimes cause back-ups on City streets06/01/2022 Future Conditions•By 2050 there will be significant congestion throughout Bremerton•PSRC’s VVisionn 20500 Planforecasts substantial growth in Bremerton and Kitsap County through 2050 •As the City pursues their growth plan conflicts between residential parking and commuter parking will increase•NBK-BR has plans for multi-billion-dollar shipyard modernizations7Kitsap Way(11thto SR 3)Free Flow = 2:20 min2020 PM Peak = 4:30 min2050 PM Peak = 5:30 minBurwell Ave(Warren to Callow)Free Flow = 2:20 min2020 PM Peak = 3:50 min2050 PM Peak = 4:20 minSR 303(Burwell to Riddell)Free Flow = 6:10 min2020 PM Peak = 10:20 min2050 PM Peak = 13:20 minTravel time estimates (in minutes) for general purpose traffic on major corridors.06/01/2022 Issues Recap•NBK-BR operations create traffic surges and congestion•Continued growth will worsen traffic conditions in the future•Neighborhood parking by commuters impacts livability and causes conflict between NBK-BR workers and residents•NBK-BR worker parking in downtown suppresses economic vitality by limiting parking for business patrons•Population growth will increase pressure on existing infrastructure decreasing Bremerton’s livability and degrading base accessibility806/01/2022 9Finding and Evaluating SolutionsIssuesPublic InputDataPlansPublic Input100+ Potential SolutionsPublic InputIssuesExpert IdeasPublic InputAlternativeAlternativeAlternativePotential SolutionsTo measure the efficacy of solutions three alternatives were evaluated against the 2050 no-build scenario.Evaluation Metrics •Travel Time•Travel Reliability•Mobility•Safety•Active Transportation•Economic Vitality•Parking•Base Accessibility•Livability06/01/2022 Alternative Evaluation10The alternatives were organized around parking strategies so that the project team could understand how traffic volume and parking patterns impact the potential solutions. Alt 1 – Relocate Commuter ParkingAlt 2 – Support Commuter Parking Alt 3 – Build Parking on Base (West Side)•Fewer cars coming into downtown Bremerton•Transit supportive projects•Traffic volume increases with growth•Capacity projects•Traffic patterns stay consistent with current patterns•Traffic volume increases with growth•Capacity projects•Traffic patterns shift to west side of base12306/01/2022 What did we learn from the evaluation of the alternatives?•Several projects showed a clear benefits and will be recommended including:•Intelligent signal systems for all major commuter corridors •Active transportation improvements targeted for commuters•Improvements proposed by the SR 303 Corridor Study•Safety improvements •None of the alternatives showed improvements to all of the evaluation metrics. In particular there was tension between base accessibility and livability•Projects that improve livability, such as road re-channelizations to accommodate bikes and pedestrians, were incompatible with alternatives that don’t reduce vehicles coming into Bremerton •To achieve reductions in congestion in the relocate parking alternative at least 2000 vehicles need to be removed from City streets in the peak hour. 1106/01/2022 12Next StepsIssuesPublic InputDataPlansPublic InputAlternativeAlternativeAlternativePotentiall SolutionsAchievable Preferred AlternativeAlternative Alternative Alternative VisionVisionVisionVision06/01/2022 Next steps To assemble a preferred alternative the project team needs guidance on the vision. The vision informs the assumptions the project team will make about the outyear of 2050.13Assume more cars coming into downtown in 2050Assume fewer cars coming into downtown in 20501123Livability VisionCapacity Vision06/01/2022 Vision Comparison14Livability Centered Vision(assume fewer cars coming into Downtown Bremerton)Capacity Centered Vision(assume more cars coming into Downtown Bremerton)VS.•Success measured by improvements to Bremerton’s livability and economic vitality•Success measured by improvements to travel time for commuters during peak hours•Growth addressed by strategies that reduce the number of cars on the roads•Growth addressed with road capacity projects•Mode shift assumptions are more aggressive and are driven by transit and policy/operations projects•Mode shift assumptions are conservative•Requires inter-agency cooperation to be effective•Most improvements are capital projects led by City of Bremerton06/01/2022 Capacity Centered AAchievingg thee Visionn Mode shift from single occupancy vehicles not expected - assume vehicle volume increases with population growth. •Added travel or turn lanes on some arterials including on Burwell, Kitsap Way, and SR 304•Significant ROW needed for road and active transportation improvements•Over 35 parcels could be impacted•Over 40 relocations (mostly on Burwell)•Capacity improvements range between $80M and $160M not including parking or active transportation.•Parking facilities in downtown or on the west side of NBK-BR could be considered to resolve neighborhood parking conflicts1506/01/2022 Capacity Centered BBenefitss && Challenges•Outcome is less dependent on inter-agency cooperation•Capacity projects likely only keep up with growth, not improve traffic conditions•More cars = more conflicts = less safety•Parking conflicts will remain and may worsen as growth increases density in Bremerton•Large capacity projects are costly, disruptive, and will require more right-of-way•Road capacity projects are hard to fund and may be infeasible due to environmental constraints (including social justice issues such as ROW impacts to disadvantaged areas)•Road re-channelization on 6thStreet would not be recommended due to capacity needs1606/01/2022 Livability Centered AAchievingg thee Vision•Shift people from commuting by car and towards using transit, active transportation, and carpool/vanpool (mode shift)•Mode shift motivated by a multi-pronged approach•Build transit capacity•Improve active transportation infrastructure•Provide alternative mode incentives to workers •Implement policies that restrict commuter parking•Educate commuters about modal options•Significant coordination between agencies17Parking PolicyMode Shift IncentivesodeTransit Capacityg Policy06/01/2022 Livability Centered PParkingg PoliciesParking policies consistent with the 2017 Parking Study could be recommended to help drive mode shift. •Study team will recommend the phasing and implementation of parking strategies to coincide with transit projects•An active management strategy is recommended so that parking policies are implemented as needed over the plan term (to 2050) •Parking policies should be further developed before implementation, including public outreach, and should be vetted and adopted by policy makers1818Parking PolicyPolicy06/01/2022 Livability Centered MModee Shiftt IncentivesNBK-BR and other major employers will need to encourage their workforce to change modes. Some strategies supported by our survey data are:•Educate commuters about modal options and emergency services•Expand and support carpool/vanpool programs•Incentivize alternative forms of transit•Provide flexible options 19Mode Shift IncentivesMSShShShInce06/01/2022 Livability Centered TTransitt Supportivee Projects Partnership with Kitsap Transit will be key to ensuring transit is available and convenient for commuters. Some goals for transit supportive projects are:•Build up park and ride capacity•Improve transit reliability through capital improvements such as a Business Access Transit lane on SR 303•Improve transit frequency•Expand on success of worker driver bus program20Transit Supportive ProjectsSu06/01/2022 Livability CenteredBBenefitss && Challenges•Reduces parking in the neighborhoods•Improves walking and biking experiences•Increases available parking for businesses•Consistent with city plans to increase density and economic vitality•Reduced commuter parking is unpopular with commuters•Mode shift goals reduce congestion and improve travel time•Parking costs dependent on partnerships with developers, Kitsap Transit, and NBK-BR•2,000 park and ride spaces could be between $50M and $100M2106/01/2022 Preferred Alternative VisionWhich vision should the project team strive for with the preferred alternative?22Capacity VisionLivability Vision06/01/2022 Next Steps•Draft a Preferred Alternative (PA) based on feedback•Evaluate PA and present to Community Sounding Board and at a Public Open House•Refine PA based on feedback•Present PA to Council •Finalize PA and draft the plan and report•Bring the draft plan and report to Council for adoption•Finalize plan and report2306/01/2022 More Information24KKatiee KettererCityy off Bremertonn Projectt Manager360-473-5334Katie.Ketterer@ci.bremerton.wa.uswww.bremertonwa.gov/jctp06/01/2022 Build Conditions25Kitsap Way(11thto SR 3)2050 PM Peak = 3:20 min(2:10 savings)2050 PM Peak = 5:40 min(no change)2050 PM Peak = 3:40 min(1:50 savings)Burwell Ave(Warren to Callow)2050 PM Peak = 3:10 min(1:10 savings)2050 PM Peak = 4:20 min(no change)2050 PM Peak = 4:30 min(no change)SR 303(Burwell to Riddell)2050 PM Peak = 12:40 min(0:40 savings)2050 PM Peak = 12:00 min(1:20 savings)2050 PM Peak = 11:30 min(1:50 savings)Travel time estimates (in minutes) for general purpose traffic on major corridors. If change is less than 30 seconds it is listed as no change.Alt 1 – Relocate Commuter ParkingAlt 2 – Support Commuter ParkingAlt 3 – Build Parking on Base (West Side)06/01/2022 To the right you see Templafy taskbarwith access to your contentAre you offline?Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layoutWith Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesTToo tthhee rriigghhtt yyoou sseeee TTemmpllaaffyy taskkbbbaarrwwiitthh aacccceess to your contteennttAAre you oofffflliinnnee??CCCllliiicckk NNeeww SSlidddee iiinnnn rrrriiibbbbbbooon anndd sseelleecctt aa lllaayyoouuuttJoint Compatibility Transportation PlanCommunity Sounding Board Meeting #5 09/21/22 Agenda•Brief recap of the JCTP project and progress•Review draft Preferred Alternative (PA)•Review screening results•Discuss potential constraints and/or barriers to projects209/21/2022 Project Goals•Examine existing and future need for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR•Develop solutions to resolve deficits•Evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands•Develop a prioritized implementation plan309/21/2022 4Schedule Planning for Future Growth5•PSRC’sVVisionn 20500 Planforecasts substantial growth in Bremerton and Kitsap County through 2050 •City of Bremerton is a designated Regional Growth Center•NBK-BR has plans for multi-billion-dollar shipyard modernizations•As the City pursues their growth plan conflicts between residential parking and commuter parking will increase09/21/2022 Issues Recap•Population growth will increase pressure on existing infrastructure decreasing Bremerton’s livability and degrading base •By 2050, peak hour traffic volumes will increase by over 30%•NBK-BR operations create traffic surges and congestion•60% of traffic coming into Bremerton during the peak period is attributed to NBK-BR•By 2050 there will be significant congestion throughout Bremerton •Number of intersections operation at LOS F doubles•2017 Parking Study confirmed large numbers of commuter vehicles are parking illegally in Downtown and in neighborhoods.•As downtown redevelops, it is likely that parking will go away, pushing illegal parking further into outlying neighborhoods, if nothing changes609/21/2022 Recap: Alternative Evaluation7Alternatives were organized around parking strategies so that the project team could understand how traffic volume and parking patterns impact the potential solutions. Alt 1 – Relocate Commuter ParkingAlt 2 – Support Commuter ParkingAlt 3 – Build Parking on Base (West Side)•Add parking at strategic locations outside of downtown•Fewer cars coming into downtown Bremerton•Transit supportive projects•Traffic volume increases with growth•Capacity projects•Traffic patterns stay consistent with current patterns•Traffic volume increases with growth•Capacity projects•Traffic patterns shift to west side of base12309/21/2022 Recap: VisioningTo assemble a preferred alternative the project team sought guidance on the vision from the CSB and the City Council. AA “Livabilityy Vision”” thatt addressess thee nneedd too maintainn Basee accessibilityy wass selectedd too movee forward.8Assume more cars coming into downtown in 2050Assume fewer cars coming into downtown in 20501123Livability VisionCapacity Vision09/21/2022 Parking PolicyMode Shift Incentivesde Transit Capacityg PolicyILivability Centered Preferred Alternative AAchievingg thee Vision•Add parking in strategic locations outside downtown.•Shift a percentage of people from commuting into downtown by car to towards other modes•Provide infrastructure and incentives to motivate mode shift, including•Significant coordination between agencies909/21/2022 Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative comprises elements of the 3 alternatives that will help create the vision of livability. Key elements include:9Provide additional parking outside of downtown in strategic locations9Build capacity projects that make it easier to get to this parking9Provide shuttle service to get from additional parking to downtown quickly, efficiently and safely9Focus on creating a safe, efficient network of sidewalks and bike lanes in downtown and neighborhoods surrounding the Base1009/21/2022 Preferred Alternative Diagram1109/21/2022 Preferred Alternative •Add parking in strategic locations outside downtown and couple with capacity projects that make it easier to get to the additional parking•Roundabouts at SR 3/Kitsap Way•Roundabouts at SR 3/Loxie Eagen•Support capacity projects in SR 303 Corridor Study•Adaptive signal timing at all signalized intersections•Build and operate a Traffic Management Center•Support future improvements in Gorst•Implement parking policies downtown and in neighborhoods surrounding NBK that will help drive mode shift•Actively manage on-street parking management strategies, and implement permits and paid parking as needed•Establish a transportation management association•Issue commuter parking permits for City owned facilities•Create parking zone with on-street paid parking permits1209/21/2022 Preferred Alternative (continued)•Build transit capacity and reliability•More bus routes to the shipyard•High frequency shuttle service between Park-and-Rides and downtown.•Support BAT lane on SR 303•Build Active Transportation projects downtown and near NBK that will support/drive mode shift•6th Street Road Diet•Naval Avenue Road Diet•Add bike facilities on 1stStreet between Naval Ave and Calloway•Active transportation projects in SR 303 Study, south of Warren Ave Bridge•Support Mobility Hubs at Gateway Park-and-Ride•Build Mobility Hub on City owned property at 4th/Park•Bike lane between 4th/Park mobility HUB and 6thStreet•Bike facility on Shorewood Drive, connecting to bike facilities on Kitsap Way•Bike lockers near State, Burwell and Bremerton gates•Improve sidewalks within 10-minute walkshed of all gates•Pedestrian improvements at strategic locations1309/21/2022 Preferred Alternative (continued)•Add inbound capacity at Base gates•Encourage mode shift through education and incentives•Maintain telework options•Provide incentives to ride transit•Reduced fare and regular bus passes•Improve technology to make worker-driver program better•Partner with Port Orchard to explore additional parking options for foot-ferry•Support Kitsap Transit’s future Port Orchard transit center1409/21/2022 Second Level ScreeningChanges since October 2021 Evaluation•Transit Signal Priority (TSP) included in No Build and all Alternatives•Naval Avenue road diet removed from No Build and now included in Preferred•11thStreet Road diet removed from alternatives1509/21/2022 Second Level Screening - Rating•For each performance measure, improvements scored on the range shown below •Most study goals include more than one performance measure. Individual scores rolled up into one overall score for each study goal.16Make conditions worse compared to 2050 No BuildNone/minimal change to conditions compared to 2050 No BuildProject improves conditions compared to 2050 No BuildProject creates even greater improvements compared to 2050 No Build09/21/2022 Travel times (GP and transit)Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit)Average ScorePerson hours of delay - general purposePerson hours of delay - TransitAverage ScoreNumber of overall crashesNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesAverage ScoreAdd Base Parking AlternativePreferred AlternativeMobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes.Travel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable.Support Parking AlternativeStudy Goal AreaPerformance MeasuresRelocate Parking AlternativePreferred Alternative Screening 1709/21/2022 Travel times (GP and transit)Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit)Average ScorePerson hours of delay - general purposePerson hours of delay - TransitAverage ScoreNumber of overall crashesNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesAverage ScoreAdd Base Parking AlternativePreferred AlternativeMobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes.Travel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable.Support Parking AlternativeStudy Goal AreaPerformance MeasuresRelocate Parking AlternativePreferred Alternative Screening 18•Reduction in cars in downtown improves travel times for both cars and buses•Express bus service significantly improves transit travel times•Roundabout at 6th/Naval helps offset delays from 6thStreet Road Diet09/21/2022 Travel times (GP and transit)Travel Time Reliability (GP and transit)Average ScorePerson hours of delay - general purposePerson hours of delay - TransitAverage ScoreNumber of overall crashesNumber of serious injury and fatal crashesAverage ScoreAdd Base Parking AlternativePreferred AlternativeMobility:Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.Safety:Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes.Travel Times and Reliability:Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable.Support Parking AlternativeStudy Goal AreaPerformance MeasuresRelocate Parking AlternativePreferred Alternative Screening 19•Preferred Alt – mobility improves compared to No Build, but huge increase in transit ridership results in increase person hours of delay (transit)09/21/2022 Preferred Alternative Screening 20Number of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&Rs under low stress conditionsNumber of high-quality travel choices in the study areaSafe and Comfortable Walking and Biking OptionsAverage ScorePreferred AlternativeActive Transportation:Improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone.Support Parking AlternativeStudy Goal Area Performance MeasuresRelocate Parking AlternativeAdd Base Parking Alternative•Mobility hubs at 2 locations will increase high quality travel choices•Improvements to sidewalks within 10-minute walkshed will increase low-street options for accessing NBK-BR by foot•Added bike lanes will increase low-stress options for accessing NBK-BR by bike09/21/2022 Preferred Alternative Screening 21Parking utilizationParking violationsCity parking revenueCity parking enforcementAccessibility to parking for Base workersTracking the "Bremerton Shuffle"Surface parking/land use impactsAverage ScorePreferred AlternativeParking:Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user-friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods.Support Parking AlternativeStudy Goal Area Performance MeasuresRelocate Parking AlternativeAdd Base Parking Alternative•Preferred Alternative best meets the goals of balancing parking needs for commuters and not negatively impacting downtown.09/21/2022 Livability & Base Accessibility 22•LLivability•Accommodate forecasted growth in a way that doesn’t negatively impact downtown Bremerton•Accessibility•Maintain or improve accessibility to NBK-BR and PSNS 09/21/2022 Livability & Base Accessibility 23Downtown LivabilityBase AccessibilityGoalFocus is area most affected by operations of NBK-BR and PSNS (south of 11thStreet between Charleston Blvd and the Port of Washington Narrows)For continued NBK-BR and PSNS operations, accessibility to the base and PSNS must be maintained or improved as part of this projectMetrics•Efficiency of mobility for all users•Safety•Ability to improve multi-modal connectivity•Parking for businesses & residents•Improvement to health•Increase in walkable housing options•Travel times•Options for access (bus, bike, walk) •Access to parking•Efficiency of entry points (delay at entry)•Simplicity of access •Availability of transportation options for return trip•Increase in walkable housing options09/21/2022 Base Accessibility & Livability24BBasee Accessibility: Improve Base accessibility for NBK-BR workers.LLivability: Improve overall livability for Bremerton residents.Preferred AlternativeSupport Parking AlternativeStudy Goal AreaRelocate Parking AlternativeAdd Base Parking AlternativePreferred Alternative scores well for Base Accessibility (improved travel times; improved access at Base gates with extra lanes) AND scores high for livability09/21/2022 Balancing Livability and Base Accessibility•Projects proposed to create a Livable Downtown will also provide benefits to NBK-BR and PSNS:•Increase housing options near the Base•Easier, safer to access the Base by alternate modes•Building a more vibrant, safe and “livable” downtown that is attractive is a benefit to everyone and positive impact on workforce attraction and retention2509/21/2022 Balancing Livability and Base Accessibility9As downtown redevelops, it is likely that paid private parking will become scarce. 9Recognizing the need for more parking, City is committed to exploring partnership opportunities to build more parking in strategic locations outside of downtown9Couple additional parking with strategic capacity projects that make it easier to get to this additional parking9Provide shuttle service to get from additional parking to downtown quickly, efficiently and safely9Mode shift will also help decrease volumes on the roads into downtown, providing a travel time benefit for both the shuttle service users and those commuters who still need to drive into downtown2609/21/2022 Livability Centered MModee Shiftt IncentivesNBK-BR and other major employers will need to encourage their workforce to change modes. Some strategies supported by our survey data are:•Educate commuters about modal options and emergency services•Expand and support carpool/vanpool programs•Incentivize alternative forms of transit•Provide flexible options 27Mode Shift IncentivesMSShShShInce•DISCUSSION – what is feasible/not feasible for NBK-BR and PSNS?09/21/2022 Next Steps•Refine PA based on feedback•Present PA to Council •Finalize PA and draft the plan and report•Bring the draft plan and report to Council for adoption•Finalize plan and report2809/21/2022 To the right you see Templafy taskbarwith access to your contentAre you offline?Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layoutWith Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesTToo tthhee rriigghhtt yyoou sseeee TTemmpllaaffyy taskkbbbaarrwwiitthh aacccceess to your contteennttAAre you oofffflliinnnee??CCCllliiicckk NNeeww SSlidddee iiinnnn rrrriiibbbbbbooon anndd sseelleecctt aa lllaayyoouuuttJoint Compatibility Transportation PlanCommunity Sounding Board Meeting #605/17/23 Agenda•Introductions•Schedule check-in•Summary of comments on draft preferred alternative•Crosswalk to preferred alternative•Phasing possibilities•Discuss next steps205/17/2023 •Examine existing and future need for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR•Develop solutions to resolve deficits•Evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands•Develop a prioritized implementation plan3Project Goals05/17/2023 4Schedule Preferred Alternative5•Preferred Alternative comprises elements of the 3 alternatives that will help create the vision of livability. Key elements include:9Provide additional parking outside of downtown in strategic locations9Build capacity projects that make it easier to get to this parking9Provide shuttle service to get from additional parking to downtown quickly, efficiently and safely9Focus on creating a safe, efficient network of sidewalks and bike lanes in downtown and neighborhoods surrounding the Base05/17/2023 Input on Preferred Alternative6•Project team solicited input on the Preferred Alternative:9CSB presentation in September 20229Held an Open House in October 2022 to get public input9Briefed the Public Works Committee in October 2022 9Met with the Navy and Shipyard staff in February 2023 to discuss feedback•Incorporated what we heard into a revised Preferred Alternative05/17/2023 Preferred Alternative – Key Input from Community Sounding Board7•Structured parking on base is difficult due to funding constraints•Kitsap Transit moving toward smaller park and rides in mixed use centers instead of big lots. This will lower costs and address safety concerns•Thoughts about how housing and housing affordability impact project•Discussion about ways to incentivize transit and the issues with worker/driver busses05/17/2023 8•Hosted third and final virtual Open House on 10/6/22•Shared the evaluation process that led to the preferred alternative•Shared the preferred alternative •Comments were generally in support of the plan, especially related to pedestrian and bicycle improvements•Some concerns about how Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) will impact traffic in the short/mid termPreferred Alternative – Key input from Open House #3 05/17/2023 Preferred Alternative – Key input from NBK-BR9•Include lighting upgrades as part of any design project•Most of the workforce arrives between 4:00-7:30 am•Would help improve visibility and safety for active transportation users•Further coordination needed on the Jackson Park bike route•Consider a flyover ramp from SR 3 SB to SR 304 (Charleston Blvd)•Concerns over road diets •Reduced capacity could lead to congestion in the AM peak•Requested additional data and analysis of those projects05/17/2023 Preferred Alternative Changes10•Re-evaluated and confirmed the feasibility of road diet projects•Added all-way walk at Pacific Ave/Burwell St•Recommend NBK-BR review need for ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 (Charleston Blvd) as part of upcoming EIS for Bremerton Waterfront Infrastructure Improvements at PSNS and IMF*•Adjusted parking strategies to highlight active management and implement permits and paid parking as needed•Establish a transportation management association* Suggested language from WSDOT; need discussion with NBK-Bremerton05/17/2023 Preferred Alternative Changes11•Align projects and language with Kitsap Transit’s plan•Reflect plans for smaller park and ride lots•Support development of Gateway property•Highlight active transportation improvements on 1st St from Callow Ave to Naval Ave•Revise language for Shorewood Dr bike facilities project to reflect need to further coordinate with Navy•Include need to improve ped/bike facilities near transit stops and park and rides05/17/2023 12•Refined project descriptions to add clarity and more detail, based on feedback from CSB, Open House, and NBK-BR comments•Separated projects into two categories: 1) capital improvements and 2) policies•Identified “owner agency” for each project•Identified relationships to other projects including necessary predecessorsPreferred Alternative – Implementation05/17/2023 13•Four categories used to help prioritize projects:oJCTP goalsoCost leveloEase of implementationoFunding•Project with highest scores recommended for early phasing•Final phasing reflects relationship between projectsPreferred Alternative – Project Phasing05/17/2023 14•Education – survey responses indicated that there is a big opportunity to increase knowledge about commuting options•NBK-BR Gate Management– recent gate management at Naval and Montgomery gates meets needs for the project•Teleworking – most NBK-BR workforce cannot telework, however for those that can the impact is significant•Parking Study Implementation – since 2017 study, many of the recommendations have been put in place including increased enforcement and a license plate reader•Improved lighting – Bremerton has invested over $500k to upgrade downtown area to brighter led fixtures in ‘22 & ’23•Density – Comprehensive plan update will address ways to encourage growth and density in ways that support City and regional goalsPreferred Alternative – Ongoing & Early ActionsHighlights of some actions that are underway05/17/2023 Preferred Alternative Short-Term Capacity Projects (0-6 yrs)15•Funding for Naval and 6thStreet Road Diets is currently being pursued by City and the Naval Avenue Project has funding for design and ROW acquisition. C40Naval Avenue Road DietCity of BremertonC246th Street Road DietCity of BremertonAT15Add a shared-use path on south side of 1st St between Naval Ave and Callow AveCity of BremertonAT5Within the 10-minute walksheds of base gates, upgrade and/or add sidewalks; upgrade marked and unmarked crossings to be ADA compliantCity of BremertonC20Change signal timing to include all-way pedestrian phase at State St/Burwell St, Park Ave/Burwell St, and Pacific Ave/Burwell St intersectionsCity of BremertonC35Adaptive signal timing at 19 signalized intersections along Kitsap Way, 6th St, and 11th St City of BremertonC38Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan, per updated plan (2022). Includes adaptive signal timing along Burwell St and pedestrian crossing treatments at 6th St/Hewitt Ave and Burwell St/Washington AveCity of BremertonAT48Add bike facilities on Shorewood Dr to connect to Kitsap Way and to downtown Bremerton. Navy should consider improving path from Grays Harbor Court to Shorewood Drive to provide connection for Jackson Park to city facilities. City of BremertonNBK-BRC31Pedestrian/bike improvements within 5 minute walkshed of park and rides or transit hubs (existing and proposed)City of BremertonKitsap TransitAT27Improve the sidewalk conditions in the neighborhood west of Charleston BlvdCity of Bremerton/Kitsap CountyAT55Construct bike lanes on Park Ave from 4th St to 6th StCity of BremertonAT19Install secure covered bike parking inside NBK-BR, PSNS, and outside gates NBK-BRB3Improve or manage vehicle input at NBK-BR gates in the AM peak to decrease queuing on City streets NBK-BRB18Allow input at Montgomery gate during AM peak hours and allow output during PM peak hours NBK-BRC14Study need for a new off-ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 as part of the Navy’s EIS for Bremerton Waterfront Infrastructure Improvements at PSNS and IMF**suggested language from WSDOT, needs discussion with NBK-BremertonNBK-BRWSDOT, City of BremertonOwner AgencyPartner Agencies Project CodeProject Description AT1Support Kitsap Transit's redevelopment of the Gateway Park and Ride property located at 6th St and Montgomery AveCity of BremertonKitsap TransitCTR1Maintain telework options currently available to DOD employees NBK-BRCTR3Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker Driver Bus program by making changes to reimbursement process and easing use requirementsNBK-BRCity of Bremerton, Kitsap TransitCTR11Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker Driver Bus program by using technology and active management to optimize routes and by adding "late" routes and/or alternative shift routesKitsap Transit NBR-BRCTR12Study increased foot-ferry capacity between Bremerton and Port Orchard to align with Kitsap Transit's Long Range Transit PlanKitsap TransitCity of Bremerton,City of Port OrchardCTR4Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on incomeKitsap TransitO6Better enforcement of HOV lanesWashington State PatrolCity of BremertonAT14Support planning efforts for SR 3 in Gorst.WSDOTCity of Bremerton, NBK-BR, Kitsap County, Port of Bremerton, Port OrchardOwner AgencyPartner Agencies Project CodeProject DescriptionPreferred Alternative Short-Term Policy Projects (0-6 yrs)16•Parking, transit, enforcement, and NBK-BR policy changes can be implemented05/17/2023 AT2Construct a mobility hub at the southwest corner of Park Ave and 4th St for first/last mile connectionsCity of BremertonKitsap TransitC26Traffic Management Center that includes IT infrastructure to support adaptive signals (e.g. Cloud based technology)City of BremertonC41Convert signal at Naval Ave/6th St to a roundaboutCity of BremertonPM15Implement paid on-street parking in the downtown subareaCity of BremertonPM2Implement permit only parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to and surrounding NBK-BRCity of BremertonPC6Add approximately 700 stalls north and west of SR 3; planned Kitsap Transit park and ride near Auto Center Way is a potential location for some of the parking stalls.Kitsap TransitPC4Add approximately 225 stalls north of NE McWilliams Rd on SR 303 Kitsap TransitPC3Add approximately 1,150 new parking stalls south of Gorst (e.g. PSIA airport) Kitsap TransitCity of BremertonT8Shuttle service between Park and Rides and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency) Kitsap Transit NBK-BRT6More bus routes and greater frequency (10-15 minute headways) to NBK-BR, including early moring and late evening routesKitsap Transit NBK-BRPM3Establish a transportation management association. This is typically a non-profit established as a public/private partnership with funding primarily from major employers. Funding is used to support expansion of commuter transportation options as alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles through education, programs, and incentives.Kitsap TransitCity of Bremerton, NBK-BR, Port of Bremerton, WSDOTC1Convert signals at SR 3/Kitsap Way interchange to roundabouts WSDOTCity of BremertonC2Convert stop sign and signals at SR 3/W Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange to roundabouts WSDOTCity of BremertonOwner AgencyPartner Agencies Project CodeProject DescriptionPreferred Alternative Mid-Term Projects (6-20 yrs)17•Added parking outside of downtown is high cost and requires implementation of other projects (e.g. increased transit service)05/17/2023 Preferred Alternative Long-Term Projects (20+ yrs)18•Additional parking at NBK-BR is high cost and requires federal approvalC29Build projects proposed in SR 303 Corridor Study - prioritize capacity projects including RABs and BAT lane City of BremertonKitsap CountyKitsap TransitB7Maximize the efficient use of parking stalls on NBK-BR installation and construct additional parking NBK-BROwner AgencyPartner Agencies Project CodeProject Description05/17/2023 Next Steps19•Draft the plan and report•Bring the draft plan and report to Council for adoption•Finalize plan and report05/17/2023 Appendix C Community Engagement Summary Page 1 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Final Community Engagement Summary October 2023 Overview Compared to other Washington cities of its size, Bremerton has unique traffic and parking issues. These are largely thanks to its proximity to a major military employer - Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton (NBK-BR). People living and working in Bremerton experience traffic surges at shift changes, limited parking, and older, car-focused infrastructure can exacerbate problems. The City of Bremerton projects more people will move to the area in coming years, placing even greater demand on transportation infrastructure. By 2050, peak hour traffic volumes will increase by 30%, with two-thirds of traffic going to and from NBK-BR. The City and NBK-BR are partnering to create a plan to address transportation issues and ensure the City’s growth will not impede NBK-BR military missions. The US Department of Defense granted the City and NBK-BR $750,000 to create a transportation plan that:  Examined existing and future need for all transportation modes serving NBK-BR  Developed solutions to resolve deficits  Evaluated options to mitigate transportation and parking demands  Developed a prioritized implementation plan Over two years, the City and NBK-BR examined needs for all transportation modes in the city. The study evaluated options to mitigate transportation and parking demands and recommended a preferred alternative. The Preferred Alternative reflects input from community and partner audiences and includes additional parking outside of Downtown, roadway capacity improvements, parking policies that improve and reduce NBK-BR commuter parking in Downtown, additional transit capacity and reliability, and active transportation improvements in Downtown and near NBK-BR. Community Engagement The City and NBK-BR led an open community engagement process with opportunities to inform and engage community members and key partners. As part of their effort to reach as many people as possible, the study team convened a Community Sounding Board (CSB) representing key partners and held an online survey and virtual public meetings at key study milestones. The study team outlined the following engagement goals (see the Community Engagement Plan in Attachment A): From the final presentation to the Community Sounding Board Page 2  Provide an open and transparent decision-making process through constructive two-way communication between the study team and the public.  Provide early and ongoing opportunities for community members to raise issues and concerns and to provide input that the study team will consider.  Proactively inform and engage all community members regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, income, or primary language.  Build community understanding of findings and recommendations. The study team engaged the public early in the process to create three draft Build Alternatives. Later, the study team collected feedback on these alternatives. Once the City Council selected the Preferred Alternative, the study team used community feedback to further refine the plan. The City involved community partners, including neighbors, roadway users, community-based organizations, active and retired military members, regulatory agencies, elected officials, businesses, property owners, and interested individuals. The study team helped community members to understand what decisions they can influence, how the City will use their input, and how to contact the City for further information. A variety of accessible opportunities and easy-to-understand materials helped to explain key aspects of the study. The study team heard from a range of community members throughout the study process and documented the influence of community input and priorities. Key themes Several themes emerged from the community feedback collected over the course of the study.  Safe routes to bike and walk are important to residents and workers. The City should prioritize gaps in sidewalk and bike lane networks and provide safe walking and biking for commuters and near the ferry terminal.  Respondents want better transit options, including more and frequent transit stops, and would like to see if a shuttle service could help improve connections.  Parking, especially Downtown, is a headache. Many would like the City to explore solutions to relieve parking demand, including providing incentives to use alternative travel, implementing residential parking permits or adding parking garages.  Traffic flow is a problem, especially during shift changes. Community Sounding Board Meetings Input from the CSB was critical to the plan development and refinement. The CSB represented organizations with common interest in the study goals and provided guidance and oversight to the study team. The City convened the CSB in collaboration with the Mayor’s office and included staff and council members from the City of Bremerton, representatives from the Bremerton Chamber of Commerce, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, WSDOT, Suquamish Tribe, Port of Bremerton, Kitsap County and Kitsap Transit. The CSB reviewed data collected at public open houses and surveys. Later in the process, the CSB reviewed and provided feedback on plan alternatives. The CSB met six times between 2021 and 2023. Additional agency representatives not included in the CSB participated in one or both of the workshops in summer 2021 or in CSB meeting #4. Project Management Team  Katie Ketterer – City of Bremerton  Tom Knuckey – City of Bremerton  Shane Weber – City of Bremerton Page 3 Community Sounding Board  Kevin Gorman – Bremerton City Council  Michael Goodnow – Bremerton City Council  David Emmons – Bremerton Chamber of Commerce  Denise Frey – Bremerton Chamber of Commerce  Garrett Jackson – City of Bremerton  Mayor Greg Wheeler – City of Bremerton  Melinda Monroe – City of Bremerton  Vicki Grover – City of Bremerton  David Forte – Kitsap County  Melissa Mohr – Kitsap County  Ed Coviello – Kitsap Transit  Allison Satter – NBK-BR  Nicole Leaptrot-Figueras – NBK-BR  Sara Oliveira – NBK-BR  Fred Salisbury – Port of Bremerton  George Mazur –WSDOT  Matthew Pahs – WSDOT  Pamela Vasudeva – WSDOT Workshop Attendees  Sara Felty – City of Bremerton Police  Steffani Lillie – Kitsap Transit  Michael Dobling – NBK-BR  James Cook – PSNS  Para Kan – PSNS CSB Meeting #4 Special Attendees  Kate Milward – City of Bremerton  Ned Lever – City of Bremerton  Charlotte Garrido – Kitsap County  John Clauson – Kitsap Transit  Captain Richard Massie – NBK-BR  Rick Tift – PSNS  James Cook – PSNS  Para Kan – PSNS The JCTP CSB was kicked off in January 2021. The schedule for the CSB meetings and the topics discussed are shown in the table below. These meeting dates were scheduled to ensure that public input was received at each of the study decision points. CSB meetings were used to gather information from key representatives from various interested agencies, organizations, and jurisdictions. This information was then used to create materials for public input on the direction, findings, and recommendations of the study. Meeting summaries for the six CSB meetings are included in Attachment B. Page 4 Community Sounding Board Meeting Schedule Meeting Date Meeting Topics CSB Meeting #1 January 28, 2021 Project overview and goals, community engagement, discuss early project ideas Workshop #1 June 16, 2021 Public information survey results, baseline conditions analysis and identified needs, modal breakout rooms to brainstorm improvements CSB Meeting #2 July 7, 2021 Public information survey results, baseline conditions analysis and identified needs, preliminary Build Alternatives, screening approach Workshop #2 August 13, 2021 First Level Screening results and draft Build Alternatives CSB Meeting #3 October 26, 2021 Build Alternatives and Second Level Screening results CSB Meeting #4 June 1, 2022 Discussion of two future visions: Livability Centered Vision or Capacity Centered Vision Note: This meeting included an expanded invitation list. The special attendees are listed above. CSB Meeting #5 September 21, 2022 Preferred Alternative projects and screening results CSB Meeting #6 May 17, 2023 Updated Preferred Alternative projects and project phasing Themes we heard from the Community Sounding Board Active transportation The CSB noted the area has poor sidewalks and sidewalk connectivity and difficult street crossings – despite the fact that 10,000 pedestrians walk onto NBK-BR every day. The CSB advocated for improved access for people walking and biking. Transit The CSB identified barriers to using transit including infrequent bus service and poor active transportation facilities near bus stops. Planned increases in housing density will help increase ridership. General purpose traffic The CSB cited traffic surges and delays especially during NBK-BR shift changes, and problems at intersections. The CSB reviewed crash and lighting data and emphasized the importance of pedestrian safety. CSB members asked that the plan recommend alternatives to driving such as buses, carpools, vanpools and biking and free or reduced bus passes and incentives for telework. These options would help to reduce traffic issues caused by car trips. Parking In Downtown Bremerton, demand for parking exceeds supply. The City is looking into private/public partnerships to address parking shortages. During their meetings, CSB members learned that a structure for parking on NBK-BR is now on the list of funding priorities and that the City is unlikely to reduce the minimum residential parking requirements. Additional comments from the CSB When reviewing the livability- and capacity-centered visions proposed by the study team, the CSB observed that the two visions were not mutually exclusive and that elements from each could be included in the final plan. CSB members reviewed the Preferred Alternative’s draft implementation plan and requested greater consistency between regional planning documents like the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan, lighting improvements, and additional study of the SR 3 southbound flyover ramp. Page 5 Complete Streets Committee The City of Bremerton’s Complete Streets Committee was formed in 2021 to provide advice to Public Works to implement the complete streets vision as outlined in Bremerton Municipal Code 11.10. The Committee is comprised of appointed community members. The study team gave presentation regarding the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan to the Complete Streets Committee on November 4, 2021 and May 17, 2022. Meeting summaries for the two Complete Streets Committee meetings are included in Attachment C. Themes we heard from the Complete Streets Committee Feedback from the Complete Streets Committee helped the study team to identify community needs and priorities, refine and create draft Build Alternatives, and finally, to select the Preferred Alternative. At the November 4, 2021 meeting, the Committee participated in a poll that helped prioritize needs to be addressed in the survey. Safety, Active Transportation, and Livability were among the highest priorities of the Committee. Quantifiable effects Participants were interested in how the study would balance easily measurable effects, like the cost of parking garages, with less measurable effects like home prices. Transit incentives Participants suggested incentive programs to encourage NBK-BR workers to choose transit over single- occupancy vehicles. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity Participants noted that it is important to consider the needs of pedestrians and bicycles separately as they have different needs. Virtual Open Houses The study team held three virtual open houses to provide a convenient and accessible way for Bremerton residents to provide input to the plan and for the City to share project updates and study results while limiting in-person gatherings due to COVID-19. During the first virtual open house (February 9, 2021), the City introduced the study, explained why the City and NBK-BR are studying ways to improve travel options in the City, and encouraged input on community priorities to inform the plan. During the second virtual open house on December 2, 2021 the study team presented and gathered input on the baseline conditions findings and draft concepts. The third virtual open house (October 11, 2022) shared how community input shaped the Preferred Alternative. Each virtual open house included an opportunity for community members to ask questions and make comments on the project. Meeting summaries for the three virtual open houses are included in Attachment D. Additionally, the City hosted a topic specific virtual open house regarding the proposed east-west bike corridor and roadway re-channelization projects on 6th Street. This meeting was held on November 3, 2022 and shared the plan to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the 6th Street corridor from Washington Avenue to Callow Avenue. Notifications The study team promoted the virtual open house through a variety of channels, including:  Email invitations sent to community members who completed or expressed interest in the study.  Email invitations sent from CSB members to their constituencies.  Social media posts advertised on the City’s Facebook page.  Announcements at City Council meetings.  Flyers to local businesses and community-based organizations.  Announcements on project partner websites including the NBK-BR website. Page 6  Advertisements on message boards located on SR 3 and on SR 303.  Postcard invitations to residents and businesses along 6th Street (for the 6th Street meeting only). Themes we heard at the virtual open houses Community feedback from the virtual open houses helped the study team to identify community needs and priorities, refine and create draft Build Alternatives, and finally, to select the Preferred Alternative. Attendees were especially interested in improving pedestrian and cyclist safety in Downtown and finding ways to incentivize moving away from car travel. Attendees wanted infrastructure investments, better parking, access to transit, and connections for people walking and biking. Safety and accessibility In each meeting, participants noted safety and accessibility as key priorities. Participants encouraged the study team to include bike lanes and wider sidewalks and also supported roadway changes to encourage slower vehicle speeds. Parking Participants expressed concern about lack of available parking, especially during the busiest times of day and near NBK-BR. Some suggested building parking garages and considering alternative transportation options such as carpooling, shuttles, cycling or shared electric scooters and transit to relieve parking pressure. Transit connections Participants supported providing more transit options to help relieve traffic, including more frequent buses, added bus stops and financial incentives to use transit. Participants also asked about adding shuttles to parking and transit. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity Participants noted connections for people walking and biking as one of the most important corridor needs. Participants support more bike lanes and pedestrian walkways, especially through Downtown and over the Warren Avenue Bridge. Online comments During the study, residents emailed comments to City staff. The requests included better bus connections between Bangor and Bremerton, more bike racks at the ferry terminal and Downtown, additional parking solutions for workers and residents, increased safety for pedestrians (including people with disabilities) along Burwell Street and elsewhere in the area and streamlining the process for vanpools serving NBK- BR. The West Sound Cycling Club Advocacy Committee submitted a study and several sets of illustrations, diagrams and comments showing their plan for improved bicycle safety and storage in the city. The group advocated for prioritizing a safe bike network, including an east-west corridor and two north-south corridors, along with other improvements such as safer crossings at busy streets like Warren Avenue and a road diet on 6th Street. Public Information Survey The City of Bremerton also invited community input through a public information survey that was open from February 3 to 28, 2021. The survey asked participants about their travel habits both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and invited them to share input on how to improve transportation in Bremerton and NBK-BR. A total of 557 people completed the survey. Survey topics included trip origins and destinations, trip frequency, trip purposes, mode choice, impact of COVID-19 on travel behavior, issues that would influence travel mode after COVID-19, and ways to improve travel in Bremerton. Page 7 The City promoted the survey to Bremerton residents through the City’s JCTP website, a billboard, social media, email, email updates and flyers and during the February 9, 2021 virtual open house. Survey respondents represented people with a range of genders, ages, incomes, races, ethnicities, and locations in the Bremerton area. Respondents said investments in parking, traffic flow, and non-drive alone travel modes would improve travel in Bremerton. Respondents wanted to see more parking options, better traffic flow, more infrastructure for walking and biking, and a more reliable transit system, including the ferry system. Respondents wanted to see changes in shipyard policies to encourage telecommuting and staggering shifts and shuttle services. About half of survey respondents reported that they live in Bremerton, with 21% in Port Orchard and the rest a mix of nearby communities. 85% of respondents identified as white and 53% as male. The public information survey summary is included in Attachment E. Themes we heard from survey respondents Convenience is a top reason that people drive alone. Top three reasons respondents would drive alone instead of using an alternative travel mode for trips to and in Bremerton include:  Riding the bus is inconvenient or takes too long  Respondents like the convenience of having their car  Respondents have to make stops on their way to/from work More convenient service (faster trips, longer operating hours) would motivate respondents to use transit more often. Top three features that would motivate respondents to use (or use more often) public transit for trips to or in Bremerton include:  More frequent transit services  Extending transit operation time  Express service with fewer stops Increased shift flexibility and extended operating hours would improve the worker/driver bus program. Top three things that would improve the Worker/Driver bus program for trips to the shipyard include:  Increased shift flexibility  Extended transit operation time  Changes to minimum usage requirements Free services (parking, ride home) and reserved parking near workplace would motivate respondents to use vanpool more often. Top three things that would motivate respondents to use a vanpool (or vanpool more often) for trips to or in Bremerton include:  Free parking for vanpoolers  Free ride home in case of emergencies  Reserved parking for vanpoolers near workplace Free or reserved parking and reserved parking near workplace would motivate respondents to carpool more often. Top three things that would motivate respondents to carpool (or carpool more often) for trips to or in Bremerton include:  Free parking for carpoolers Page 8  Reserved parking for carpoolers near workplace  Free ride home in case of emergencies About one-third of respondents thought having “protected or separated bike lanes” would motivate them to bike. Top three things that would motivate respondents to bike (or bike more often) for trips to or in Bremerton include:  Protected/separated bicycle lanes/trails  New bike lanes  Improved existing bike lanes Respondents said roadway and shipyard access improvements were among the most important projects to improve travel in Bremerton. According to respondents, the three most important projects to improve travel include:  Roadway capacity projects  Shipyard access improvements  Roadway efficiency projects Respondents suggested investments in parking, traffic flow, and non-drive along travel modes would improve travel in Bremerton. Next Steps In response to community feedback, the City updated the Preferred Alternative and will present a final report to City Council in Fall 2023. The City will incorporate Council feedback and continue to update the community and provide opportunities for public input as they advance through the design, environment, and construction phases of this project. Attachment A. Community Engagement Plan January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan Prepared for City of Bremerton 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 www.parametrix.com PRR 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 T. 206.623.0735 www.prrbiz.com CITATION Parametrix & PRR, 2021. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan. Prepared by Parametrix & PRR, Seattle, Washington. January 2021. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 1 2. STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................ 1 3. PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 2 4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS AND OUTCOMES ................................................................... 2 4.1 Goals................................................................................................................................................. 2 4.2 Desired Outcomes ............................................................................................................................ 2 5. DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................................................... 3 5.1 Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................ 3 5.2 Age ................................................................................................................................................... 3 5.3 Income ............................................................................................................................................. 3 5.4 Disability ........................................................................................................................................... 3 5.5 Languages ......................................................................................................................................... 3 5.6 Internet Access ................................................................................................................................. 4 6. AUDIENCES .................................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 Electeds ............................................................................................................................................ 4 6.2 Agencies ........................................................................................................................................... 5 6.3 Schools ............................................................................................................................................. 5 6.4 Government Entities ........................................................................................................................ 6 6.5 Emergency Services.......................................................................................................................... 6 6.6 Medical Centers ............................................................................................................................... 6 6.7 Neighborhood and Community Groups ........................................................................................... 6 6.8 Businesses and Business Groups ...................................................................................................... 7 6.9 Parks ................................................................................................................................................. 7 6.10 Tribes ...................................................................................................................................... 7 6.11 Property Owners and Community Members ......................................................................... 7 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) ii January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 7. MILESTONES ................................................................................................................................ 7 8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT APPROACH ...................................................................................... 8 9. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TOOLS AND TACTICS ........................................................................ 8 9.1 Plan Webpage .................................................................................................................................. 8 9.2 Public Information Survey ................................................................................................................ 9 9.3 Information Materials ...................................................................................................................... 9 9.4 Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities ........................................................................ 9 9.5 Community Sounding Board Meetings .......................................................................................... 11 9.6 Virtual Open Houses ...................................................................................................................... 11 9.7 Council Briefings ............................................................................................................................. 11 10. RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................................ 12 11. STUDY CONTACTS ...................................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Study Area Map ....................................................... 1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Tactics for Reaching Underserved Communities .................................................................... 10 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CBOs community-based organizations City City of Bremerton CTR Commute Trip Reduction KCR Kitsap Community Resources NBK-BR Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton PSNS Puget Sound Naval Shipyard PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WSU Washington State University Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 1 1. OVERVIEW The City of Bremerton (City) is experiencing significant change as more people discover all this vibrant maritime community has to offer. Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton (NBK-BR) and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) help sustain Bremerton’s economy, employing 20,000 to 30,000 military, civilian employees, and defense contractors, making it the largest employer in Kitsap County. NBK-BR provides critical services, programs, and facilities that meet the needs of both enlisted and civilian personnel across the Kitsap Peninsula. NBK-BR is located near the City’s downtown core and close to a variety of residential and commercial neighborhoods. The City recognizes that growth in this area must be compatible with NBK-BR’s military missions while meeting other goals of Bremerton’s comprehensive plans such as: fostering growth, protecting the environment, encouraging economic development, and promoting community health and equity The City and NBK-BR are developing the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan to define solutions to improve mobility, outline parking strategies, and help create a vibrant community that invites people to live, work, and play. This community engagement plan outlines the City’s goals and strategies to engage community members and partners in the planning process. 2. STUDY AREA The study area is located primarily within the City (see Figure 1), with particular focus on the area surrounding NBK-BR. The study team will also collect data on where people are coming from as they travel to Bremerton and NBK-BR. Figure 1. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Study Area Map Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton 2 January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 3. PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan will outline regional transportation network improvements necessary to provide transportation resilience and maintain NBK-BR accessibility and critical mobility, NBK-BR personnel quality of life, and economic vitality for the City. Study recommendations will guide the City and NBK-BR in identifying and developing future solutions. The City and NBK-BR will engage project partners and the community to develop a plan that will:  Recommend transportation solutions that improve livability, mobility, and operational effectiveness for NBK-BR.  Ensure that the strategies are compatible with existing land use and transportation plans.  Clearly outline short-term, mid-term, and long-term actionable projects with a possible implementation plan and funding sources. 4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS AND OUTCOMES The City and NBK-BR are committed to providing an open community engagement process with opportunities to inform and engage the community and key partners. We will invite community members to interact with study team members and ask questions on issues of interest or concern throughout the study process. The following goals and desired outcomes will guide our community engagement efforts. 4.1 Goals  Provide an open and transparent decision-making process through constructive two-way communication between the study team and the public.  Provide early and ongoing opportunities for community members to raise issues and concerns and to provide input that the study team will consider.  Proactively inform and engage all community members regardless of race, ethnicity, age, disability, income, or primary language.  Build community understanding of findings and recommendations. 4.2 Desired Outcomes  Community members understand what decisions they can influence, how the City will use their input, and how to contact the City for further information.  The City develops accessible opportunities and easy-to-understand materials to explain key aspects of the study.  The City hears from a range of community members throughout the study process.  Clear documentation of how community input and priorities influenced the study. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 3 5. DEMOGRAPHICS The total population of the City is just over 40,600, living in almost 16,800 households. Of those households, 57 percent rent and 43 percent live in housing they own or pay a mortgage for. Fourteen percent of Bremerton households do not have a vehicle and, we assume, are transit- dependent—much higher than the 5 percent of households across the county without a vehicle. Bremerton has a high percentage of people who are veterans: 17 percent of the total population in the City compared with 7 percent in the entire United States. 5.1 Race and Ethnicity  Six percent identify as African American or Black, twice the percentage compared with all of Kitsap County.  Eleven percent identify as Hispanic or Latino. 5.2 Age On average, Bremerton residents are slightly younger than Kitsap County residents. The median age of people living in Bremerton is 33 compared with an average age of 39 in Kitsap County. Thirty-one percent of Bremerton residents are between 25 and 44 years old.  Fourteen percent of the population is over the age of 64.  Seventeen percent of the population is under the age of 18. 5.3 Income  Thirty-seven percent of the population is at or below 200 percent of the poverty level compared with 21 percent of the total Kitsap County population.  The median household income is $52,716, which is $22,695 less than the Kitsap County median of $75,411. 5.4 Disability  Nineteen percent of the population self-identifies as disabled, including:  5% with a hearing difficulty,  4% with a vision difficulty,  10% with an ambulatory difficulty, and  7% with an independent living difficulty. 5.5 Languages While 90 percent of the population of Bremerton speaks only English, 4 percent speak Spanish and 3 percent speak Tagalog (including Filipino). Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton 4 January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 5.6 Internet Access Given the emphasis on virtual meetings and online engagement, it is important to note that only 84 percent of Bremerton subscribes to internet access at home, including people with cellular data. Of those, 2 percent have satellite service. Ten percent of Bremerton households do not have a computer or a smartphone at home. Of the 90 percent with some sort of computing device at home, 5 percent have only a cell phone to access the internet. 6. AUDIENCES Audiences will consist of groups and individuals within or near the study area that may be affected by, have an interest in, or have the authority to act upon the study. The City and NBK-BR will reach out to and involve community partners, including neighbors, roadway users, community-based organizations (CBOs), active and retired military members, regulatory agencies, elected officials, businesses, property owners, and interested individuals. The City will develop engagement strategies and key messages for all project partners. The study team will confirm community expectations and preferred communication methods to provide early, open, ongoing, and meaningful opportunities for input through a Community Sounding Board. We will update the following audience list at key milestones throughout the study process. 6.1 Electeds  State Senator  Senator Emily Randall, District 26  Senator Christine Rolfes, District 23  State Representative  Representative Jesse Young, District 26  Representative Michelle Caldier, District 26  Representative Sherry Appleton, District 23  Representative Drew Hansen, District 23  Federal Representative  Derek Kilmer, 6th District  City of Bremerton  Greg Wheeler, Mayor  City Council members  Pat Sullivan, District 1  Leslie Daugs, District 2  Kevin Gorman, District 3  Lori Wheat, District 4 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 5  Michael Goodnow, District 5  Mike Simpson, District 6  Eric Younger, District 7 6.2 Agencies  City of Bremerton Public Works  Tom Knuckey, Director  Ned Lever, City Engineer  Shane Weber, Managing Engineer  Kitsap County  David Forte, Transportation Planning  Kitsap County Health District  Megan Moore, Community Health Liaison  Kitsap Transit  Steffani Lillie, Service and Capital Development Director  Port of Bremerton  Jim Rothlin, Chief Executive Officer  Axel Strakeljahn, Port Commissioner  Cary Bozeman, Port Commissioner  Gary Anderson, Port Commissioner  Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)  Dennis Engel, Olympic Region, Multimodal Planning Manager  Washington State Ferries  Ray Deardorf, Senior Planning Manager 6.3 Schools  Bremerton School District  Central Kitsap School District  Olympic College  Washington State University (WSU) Bremerton – School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton 6 January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 6.4 Government Entities  Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton  Anna Whalen, Community Planning Liaison  Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 6.5 Emergency Services  Bremerton Fire Department  Bremerton Police Department  Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue  Kitsap County Sherriff’s Office  South Kitsap Fire and Rescue 6.6 Medical Centers  Bremerton VA Clinic  Naval Hospital  Peninsula Community Health Services 6.7 Neighborhood and Community Groups  Arc of the Peninsulas  Boys and Girls Club of South Puget Sound – Bremerton Branch  Bremerton ADA Committee  Shane Weber, ADA Coordinator  Bremerton Backpack Brigade  Bremerton Family YMCA  Bremerton Hispanic Group  Filipino-American Community Center  Kitsap Community Resources (KCR)  Kitsap Immigrant Assistance Center  Manette Neighborhood Coalition  NAACP Bremerton  Peninsula Services  Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee  Sarah Gutschow, Senior Planner Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 7  Union Hill Neighborhood Association  Society of St. Vincent de Paul Bremerton  West Sound Cycling Club 6.8 Businesses and Business Groups  Bremerton Chamber of Commerce  Downtown Bremerton Association  Kitsap Economic Development Association 6.9 Parks  City of Bremerton Parks  Jeff Elevado, Director 6.10 Tribes  Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe  Suquamish Tribe 6.11 Property Owners and Community Members  All residents and property owners in the study area 7. MILESTONES Date Milestone Description January 2021 Community Sounding Board kickoff meeting Introduce Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan, provide overview of key plan milestones, and confirm group charter. January 2021 Survey Conduct online to better understand where and how people are traveling within the City. February 2021 Virtual open house Introduce project and explain why the City and NBK-BR are studying ways to improve travel options in the City. Gather input on community priorities to inform the plan. June 2021 Community Sounding Board meeting Share community survey results and provide overview of existing traffic patterns. August 2021 Community Sounding Board meeting Share community feedback and gather input on draft elements and concepts. August 2021 Virtual open house Report back on what we’ve heard and share draft study concepts. Gather community input to inform plan development. November 2021 Community Sounding Board meeting Share community feedback and gather input on draft plan, including refined concepts and proposed solutions. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton 8 January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 Date Milestone Description February 2022 Community Sounding Board meeting Share preferred concept and final study results. February 2022 Virtual open house Present preferred concept and final study results. TBD City council briefing Present community input, preferred concept, and final study results. March 2022 Final engagement report Publish community and Community Sounding Board engagement report. The study team will meet regularly with Bremerton City Council members at key milestones throughout the study process. 8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT APPROACH The following principles will guide the City’s community engagement activities throughout the study process.  Engage a wide variety of audiences, with an emphasis on underrepresented and underserved community members.  Engage local elected officials throughout the study process to share study updates and community feedback and prevent surprises.  Ensure all audiences know who to contact for information, questions, and concerns, and respond to them within one business day.  Explain the study in a way that people can easily understand. This means using graphics and accessible text to help explain complex concepts, avoiding jargon, and using active voice and plain talk.  Provide multiple, accessible opportunities for input at key milestones, such as an online survey, virtual meeting, email, mail, and a phone contact number.  Track public comments by maintaining a contact list, and report back on how input helps shape the study development.  Strive for transparent, interactive conversation that includes diverse people, opinions, ideas, and information throughout the decision-making process. 9. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TOOLS AND TACTICS The City will use a variety of online and in-person engagement tactics throughout the study process. We will select from the following list of tactics to engage and inform community members in developing the plan. We will follow the most current COVID-19 regulations and guidelines and update this plan at key study milestones. 9.1 Plan Webpage The City will maintain a website to provide up-to-date information and announcements about upcoming milestones and community engagement opportunities. The website will also include contact information for key staff. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 9 9.2 Public Information Survey The study management team will develop a survey to understand where and how people are traveling within the City. Community feedback will help inform potential solutions to improve safety and mobility throughout the study area. The City will promote the survey to the audiences outlined in this plan using a wide range of tactics to encourage participation:  Social media posts in Facebook groups and other platforms (e.g., WeChat).  Partnership with NBK-BR to send electronic updates and poster flyers to promote the survey.  Partnerships with multifamily properties to send information about the survey.  Partnerships with CBOs to help distribute the survey to the people they serve.  Flyers or posters posted on Washington State Ferries, on buses, and at key community gathering locations (grocery stores, libraries, etc.).  Press release to local news outlets announcing the survey. 9.3 Information Materials The study management team will develop and, upon City approval, request written and visual materials translated into Spanish and Tagalog to convey study information and encourage participation in virtual outreach events. The study team will develop clear, easy-to-understand materials, such as:  Fact sheet or folio.  Flyers displayed at key gathering locations.  Electronic content to distribute at key milestones (e.g., virtual open houses and study conclusion). 9.4 Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities The City is committed to serving the needs of everyone in the City and ensuring all community members have a meaningful opportunity to participate in City processes and decisions. To accomplish this, the City will place a special emphasis on reaching communities that have historically been underrepresented in the public process. For the purposes of this study, the City is defining underserved communities as populations that have historically experienced bias and have been historically underrepresented in government planning. These populations are sometimes harder to reach, such as people with low incomes; people with disabilities; and people who are minority, limited-English proficient, immigrant, Hispanic, or communities of color. The City assumes that the people who are members of these historically underserved communities are disproportionately represented in the population without internet access at home. Thus, we will supplement the digital engagement strategies with some hard-copy materials. The City follows all legal requirements for populations with special protections, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, and other anti-discrimination policies. Where needed to effectively engage underserved populations, we strive to exceed those requirements and provide robust opportunities to groups that Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton 10 January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 have historically had limited access to the public process. All outreach materials will include Title VI and ADA language blocks to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The City will communicate project milestones to traditionally underserved communities by sending updates to CBOs and other groups (e.g., churches, libraries, YMCA, Kitsap Health District). We will also use a variety of engagement tactics, including:  Include a language block on project materials and a project website for all language groups that exceed 3 percent within the City, including Spanish and Tagalog. This language block will include a sentence to describe the project and the materials so people who use the language understand what they are looking for.  Upon request, provide interpretation for Spanish and Tagalog and offer interpretation services on request for other languages, including American Sign Language, for all public meetings, including virtual meetings.  Upon request, provide real-time closed captioning for all virtual public meetings.  Encourage broad participation in public meetings and outreach opportunities by advertising on social media pages and through collaboration with CBOs.  Distribute flyers and electronic notices to public libraries, community centers, neighborhood service centers, and other community gathering places. Table 1 summarizes recommended tactics for reaching underserved communities. Table 1. Tactics for Reaching Underserved Communities Tactic Location Audience Additional considerations Tabling (TBD-once COVID-19 restrictions are lifted) Olympic Community College People who are under 25 People who are immigrants People with low incomes People who rent We recommend the tables be staffed by multilingual staff who can communicate with students who are English language learners. Wheaton Way Transit Center People with low incomes People who are transit- dependent People without internet access People with disabilities Post flyers at businesses, community locations Businesses along SR 303, including Goodwill, SAARS, Wilco, Fred Meyer, and small businesses, Bremerton Food Line, Washington State Ferries Fast ferries Kitsap Transit buses People with low incomes People without internet access People with disabilities People who rent Outreach staff will follow appropriate COVID-19 social distance guidelines, including wearing masks and delivering materials following social distancing protocols. Distribute electronic notifications Advocacy groups and other social service providers People with disabilities People with low incomes Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 11 Tactic Location Audience Additional considerations Offer information Organizations serving underrepresented populations People with disabilities People with low incomes People who use languages other than English People without internet access 9.5 Community Sounding Board Meetings The City will establish a Community Sounding Board to provide input on the plan and outcomes. The City will collaborate with the Community Sounding Board to establish an area purpose and needs statement and a vision statement. Roles and responsibilities will outline the processes for reaching agreement, resolving disputes, and determining final decisions. The Community Sounding Board will include representatives from:  City of Bremerton  City of Bremerton City Council  Bremerton Chamber of Commerce  Puget Sound Naval Shipyard  WSDOT  Suquamish Tribe  Port of Bremerton  Kitsap County  Kitsap Transit 9.6 Virtual Open Houses The study team will hold three virtual open houses to provide a convenient and accessible way for Bremerton residents to provide input to inform the study and potential solutions and use a wide range of tactics to encourage participation. During the first virtual open house, the City will introduce the study, explain why the City and NBK-BR are studying ways to improve travel options in the City, and encourage input on community priorities to inform the plan. The study team will host a second virtual open house to present and gather input on study findings and draft concepts. During the third virtual open house, we will share how community input shaped the final plan and share the preferred concept. 9.7 Council Briefings The study team will present to Bremerton City Council at key project milestones to share information, report on community feedback, and gather input to inform plan development. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Engagement Plan City of Bremerton 12 January 2021 │ 554-1896-176 10. RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES  Risk: Community members and partners may favor improvement options that the City and NBK- BR are not able to include as part of the list of improvements.  Opportunity: Communicate often with community members and key partners about project goals, evaluation criteria, and timeline in all project materials and events.  Opportunity: Clearly communicate the decision-making criteria and how the public may influence decisions.  Opportunity: Report back to project partners to explain how their input helped influence the final outcomes.  Risk: The City and NBK-BR may decide not to pursue any of the proposed improvements.  Opportunity: Communicate with community members and project partners early on about the purpose of the study, the value of their comments, and the possible study outcomes, including a no-build alternative.  Opportunity: Report back to community members and project partners to explain how their feedback set the foundation for improving the corridor and explain the decision-making process.  Risk: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted community members and disproportionately burdens people who are traditionally underserved. As a result, people may be less likely to engage in the planning process.  Opportunity: Use a variety of tactics to get the word out and invite community members to participate in the planning process.  Opportunity: Offer virtual and socially distanced in-person opportunities for community members to engage in the study process and provide feedback. 11. STUDY CONTACTS  Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton, Project Manager, 360-473-5334  Dennis Engel, WSDOT, Multimodal Planning Manager, 360-357-2651  Thomas Knuckey, City of Bremerton, Director of Public Works, 360-473-5920  Michael Horntvedt, Parametrix, Consultant Project Manager, 206-838-3992  Alex Atchison, Parametrix, Senior Consultant, 206-512-5140  Laura LaBissoniere, PRR, Communications Lead, 206-734-940  Artie Nelson, PRR, Deputy Communications Lead, 843-468-6152 Attachment B. CSB Meeting Summaries Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board January 28, 2021 Virtual Teams Meeting 1 p.m. – 3 p.m. MEETING SUMMARY Welcome Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton Public Works and Study Project Manager welcomed the group to the first Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board (CSB) meeting. Katie facilitated introductions and thanked participants for their involvement, highlighting the important role of the group in developing a plan to improve the economic vitality and mobility of the area near Naval Base Kitsap- Bremerton (NBK-BR). Michael Horntvedt, Consultant team project manager, reviewed the meeting agenda which included reviewing the project goals, study schedule, and opportunities to collect feedback from the public about proposed solutions; gathering input from meeting attendees about key areas of interest and priorities for the study; and confirming group roles and responsibilities. Project Overview and Goals Michael gave an overview of unique traffic and parking challenges in the project area and explained the City, along with NBK-BR, plans to use a $750,000 Department of Defense grant to find solutions to those challenges. Michael highlighted the City and NBK-BR’s shared goals to evaluate and develop solutions that help people travel around Bremerton more easily, whether they are walking, biking, or driving. As part of this study, the project team will develop a prioritized implementation plan. NBK-BR needs to meet its national security objectives and military readiness and the City is working to create a place where people want to live and work as Bremerton continues to grow. Roles and Responsibilities Michael reviewed roles and responsibilities for the CSB and project team. The role of the CSB is to attend and participate in all meetings; identify a substitute member when necessary; keep others in their organization informed and gather feedback when possible; respect differing needs while looking for solutions that help the City and NBK-BR achieve their goals; and review and consider background materials prior to meetings. The project team will provide study updates and gather community feedback; provide the right staff at each meeting depending on the discussion topic; and listen closely to CSB members’ contributions to discussions and report back to the CSB on how their input is reflected in the study to maintain transparent communications between the project team and the City. The group did not have any comments and agreed to the roles and responsibilities. Project Workplan Michael provided an overview of the CSB schedule and community engagement timeline, highlighting the multiple opportunities for engagement and diverse range of audiences. He also outlined the technical work elements and key project milestones. The study team plans to host all events virtually until further notice (tentatively through March 2022). Community Engagement Virtual Open House #1 Katie reminded meeting attendees about the first virtual open house on Feb. 9, 2021, from 5 – 6:15 p.m. via Zoom. The City plans to post announcements on their social media channels Feb.3-9 so CSB members can share with their constituencies. The City will send the virtual open house link to CSB members so they can send to their constituencies directly as well. Public Information Survey Katie confirmed the City is posting the online survey on Feb. 1. The goal of the survey is to gather feedback on travel behavior before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The project team wants to learn about the community’s current travel behavior and the patterns people may continue as the pandemic ends (or a vaccine is widely available). The project team is also interested in collecting additional information, including:  Origin and destination of trips.  Travel modes–specifically, buses vs. traveling alone. The City is focusing mostly on Zone 16 in the downtown corridor.  Review to see if people are proposing solutions to travel issues–the project team will look to see if there is a predominant theme or solutions that are evenly applied across all modes of transit as respondents answer questions about the challenges they experience on their trips.  Demographics–the project team will evaluate differences based on income level and socio- economic factors. Michael explained how the study team plans to use the survey results. The origin/destination data will help the project team understand 1.) the modes of transportation people are using and possible improvements to those modes, and 2.) what it will take to help people change their travel behavior or determine other solutions while evaluating why people are not willing to use other modes. Michael emphasized that in addition to survey responses, pre-COVID-19 data will still serve as a baseline for evaluations. The project team will combine data collected from survey responses along with data from:  Washington State Ferries.  Other transit agencies.  NBK-BR which has information about how their members travel to and from the base.  Previous origin and destination data collected in 2017. Pamela Vasudeva, WSDOT, is willing to share raw data from WSDOT’s commute trip survey. The project team will review to see if that information is applicable to the study. Discussion Katie asked meeting attendees what early projects would provide the most benefits to the study area. Overall themes from their responses include:  Additional park and rides.  Better transit connections between park and rides.  Finding solutions to fix the traffic funnels in Gorst (a priority for Mayor Wheeler and several others).  Improve transit frequency in the area.  Increase multimodal uses at the lots along NBK-BR (e.g., electric charging stations, locker stations).  Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Naval Base.  Prioritize vanpool/carpool parking to incentivize less vehicle use.  Remove/consolidate parking along streets in the downtown subarea. Next Steps Michael and Katie thanked CSB members for attending and mentioned the project team will send out meeting invites for the next meeting scheduled for June 10. Katie encouraged CSB members to send data or other resources that may be helpful for this project such as information about projects happening at Kitsap Transit or Port of Bremerton. Attendance: Meeting Attendees:  Allison Satter, City of Bremerton  David Forte, Kitsap County  Edward Coviello, Kitsap Transit  Fred Salisbury, Port of Bremerton  Greg Wheeler, Mayor, City of Bremerton  Kevin Gorman, Bremerton City Council  Matthew Pahs, WSDOT Olympic Region  Melinda Monroe, City of Bremerton  Pamela Vasudeva, WSDOT  Thomas Knuckey, City of Bremerton  Sara Oliveira, Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton  Shane Weber, City of Bremerton Project Team:  Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton  Alex Atchison, Parametrix  Michael Horntvedt, Parametrix  Emily Welter, Parametrix  Artie Nelson, PRR Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board July 7, 2021 Virtual Teams Meeting 8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. MEETING SUMMARY Welcome Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton Public Works and Study Project Manager, welcomed the group to the second Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board (CSB) meeting. Katie reviewed the meeting agenda, which included the results of the public information survey, the project analysis and issues, the results of the first workshop, and the screening approach. Katie also reviewed the project goals that were discussed in the first CSB meeting, which included a multi-modal approach that includes general purpose traffic, active transportation, transit, and parking. Michael Horntvedt, Consultant team project manager, discussed the work plan and schedule for the rest of the project. Public Information Survey Katie reviewed the results of the public information survey that was conducted in February. The goal of the survey was to gather feedback on travel behavior before and after the COVID-19 pandemic and supplement the data collected by the project team. The survey was advertised through several different platforms and resulted in 557 people completing the survey. Key findings from the public information survey included information on why and where from people are travelling to the City, reasons for why people use some modes over others, and recommended improvements. Some key findings that were highlighted during the meeting included:  85% of respondents travel to the City for work  40% of respondents start their trip to the City from the south  The most common barriers to using transit instead of driving is that riding the bus is inconvenient or takes too long and respondents like the convenience and flexibility of using a car  The most important projects to improve travel in Bremerton were roadway capacity, shipyard access, and roadway efficiency. Katie clarified that roadway efficiency projects include improvements like signal timing and optimization and that shipyard access projects include improvements like kiss and rides or drop-off locations. Project Analysis and Issues Alex Atchison, Consultant transportation lead, reviewed the analysis and issues identified by the project team and requested feedback from the CSB on the issues presented. The modes covered included active transportation, transit, general purpose traffic, and parking. Alex also presented the inventory of projects that had been suggested by previous studies. Active Transportation The main issues for active transportation include poor sidewalk conditions, difficult pedestrian crossings and limited connectivity. Alex highlighted that 10,000 pedestrians walk onto NBK-BR every day. The CSB had the following questions and suggestions on active transportation:  CSB participants requested that the NBK-BR pedestrian map be updated to indicate that volumes are for inbound only.  Tom Knuckey (City) requested to see origin/destination data for pedestrians entering the gates and the correlation of pedestrians entering different gates to parking. Shane Weber and Melinda Monroe (City) both noted that there is data available on parking movements, permits, and enforcement that can be used. Shane suggested that pedestrians and bicyclists entering the gates could be surveyed or that Wi-Fi data from personal devices could be collected.  David Forte (Kitsap County) suggested that the project team analyze value of time to measure how far commuters are willing to park and then walk or bike to NBK-BR. He noted that this may be a more accurate measure than 1/4-mile walksheds. Transit The main issues for transit include infrequent bus service and poor active transportation facilities near bus stops. The CSB had the following questions and suggestions on transit:  Melinda requested that the transit coverage of the City of Bremerton be compared to other similar cities.  Fred Salisbury (Port of Bremerton) asked if the worker/driver buses drop off inside the NBK-BR gates and both Katie and Shane confirmed that they do.  Matthew Pahs (WSDOT) requested that the project team look at origin/destinations for ferry riders and suggested picking up ferry riders at the terminal to shift riders from single-occupancy vehicles to walking on. General Purpose (GP) Traffic The main issues for GP traffic include traffic surges and delays during NBK-BR shift changes, level of service (LOS) E or worse at several intersections, and queues exceeding storage lengths throughout the City, including at the new Washington Avenue/Manette Bridge roundabout. There are also safety concerns, with the most comment collision type in fatal and serious injury crashes being a hit pedestrian. The CSB had the following questions and suggestions on GP traffic:  Pamela Vasudeva (WSDOT) requested that the crash data for crashes involving pedestrians be broken out by cause, time of day, and lighting.  Tom requested that the queue lengths be shown graphically on the queueing maps.  Shane noted that the LOS standard for the City is LOS E and for State routes is LOS D.  Shane requested that the growth between 2020 and 2050 be quantified as growth associated with NBK-BR or growth associated with the City and noted that this would help identify how NBK- BR impacts the City or how the City impacts NBK-BR.  Shane asked how the impacts of the NBK-BR remodel will be measured. Parking The main issues for parking include demand exceeding supply and the significant midday vehicle movement known as the “Bremerton Shuffle.” Tom requested to see the number of parking spaces that NBK-BR would have to provide if it were a private employer compared to the parking that is currently supplied. He noted that it might be helpful to compare this to the amount of parking available at similar locations such as the Port of Tacoma. Workshop Results Michael presented the results of the first workshop, which was held in June and focused on identifying improvements to address the various issues. Nearly 150 different improvements were proposed during the workshop and a few additional improvements were added by the Consultant team following the workshop. The project team organized these improvements into groups: new or expanded parking, roadway capacity and signals, NBK-BR projects, transit, active transportation, education and marketing, parking management, and programs to encourage mode shift. Michael requested that the CSB review the list of improvements and submit any additional ideas to the project team. David asked why the capacity improvements were concentrated on the south end when only 40% of public information survey respondents traveled to the City from the south. CSB participants also discussed shifting some NBK-BR activities north to Bangor as a potential improvement. Screening Approach Alex presented the approach for screening improvements and alternatives. The improvements will be screened through First Level Screening, which will determine if an improvement is consistent with the goals of the study and with City and NBK-BR plans. Improvements will then be packaged into alternatives and screened through Second Level Screening. Second Level Screening will evaluate alternative packages based on qualitative and quantitative performance measures for each of the study goals: travel time reliability, mobility, safety, active transportation, economic vitality, parking, and base accessibility. The CSB will prioritize these study goals through a forced-choice pair comparison, the results of which will be used to develop weighted scores for each of the alternatives. Additional comments from NBK Continued coordination with NBK occurred to get additional input on some of the concepts considered at the CSB meeting. Below is additional input from NBK. Regarding relocating some operations/codes from NBK Bremerton to the Bangor location, NBK Bremerton indicated that the Navy is already planning to move some operations to Bangor, however not all operations could be relocated, so it is okay to list it as an option but some of those actions are already. The team would also assume that relocated functions might be backfilled with additional staff at the NBK Bremerton location, so that there would be no net change in traffic and parking demand at the NBK Bremerton location. The team discussed the possibility of staggering shifts to reduce peak demand on the roadway and parking system. NBK recommends including shift staggering as an ongoing strategy however, the Navy (and its tenants) are already staggering its shifts in Bremerton. The NBK-Bremerton population include many different teams required for operations. Those teams include supporting military and civilian personnel, PSNS&IMF, aircraft carriers that are ported, contractors and more. Shift staggering between some different tenants is already used to reduce impacts on the city and improve accessibility to the base. An example is the USS NIMITZ and USS Theodore Roosevelt workers have different shifts than PSNS&IMF. Furthermore, the Shipyard (PSNS&IMF) utilizes alternate shifts and compressed work schedules for many of their employees. However, any interruption to the standard shift for primary Transit riders is difficult because it would impact the ridership of the Worker Driver buses and the need for those assets to be at capacity to support a successful program. Another concept that was proposed would allow Kitsap Transit (KT) to run bus routes onto the base in an effort to reduce impacts to traffic operations and provide a more direct walking route for the workers. NBK would consider allowing KT to run bus routes onto the base however, it would need to exclude the PSNS&IMF. There may be details that are hard/unfeasible to make this a possibility, but it could be an option to consider. There would be a security concern to have Kitsap Transit buses running through PSNS&IMF (with the exception of the Worker/Driver buses as they have security clearance and protocols in place). Next Steps Katie and Michael concluded the meeting by reviewing the next steps for the project, including receiving new improvement ideas from the CSB participants, scheduling the second workshop, and scheduling the third CSB meeting. Michael noted that an updated schedule will be sent to the CSB following the meeting. Attendance Meeting Attendees:  Allison Satter, Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton  David Forte, Kitsap County  Denis Frey, Bremerton Chamber of Commerce  Fred Salisbury, Port of Bremerton  Garrett Jackson, City of Bremerton  Kevin Gorman, Bremerton City Council  Matthew Pahs, WSDOT Olympic Region  Melinda Monroe, City of Bremerton  Pamela Vasudeva, WSDOT  Thomas Knuckey, City of Bremerton  Shane Weber, City of Bremerton Project Team:  Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton  Alex Atchison, Parametrix  Michael Horntvedt, Parametrix  Emily Welter, Parametrix Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board October 26, 2021 Virtual Teams Meeting 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. MEETING SUMMARY Welcome Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton Public Works and Study Project Manager, welcomed the group to the third Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board (CSB) meeting. Katie reviewed the meeting agenda, the project goals, and the schedule for the rest of the project. Alternatives Alex Atchison, Consultant transportation lead, described the three Alternatives that were analyzed as part of the Second Level Screening: Support Parking, Relocate Parking, and Add Base Parking. She discussed how the NBK-BR parking numbers were estimated as well as the methodology for estimating traffic diversion associated with the Relocate Parking and Add Base Parking alternatives. The CSB had the following questions:  Allison Satter (NBK-BR) asked if the estimate for 1,000 relocated vehicles was for one hour during the peak or the full day. o Answer: 1,000 is the number of relocated vehicles during the peak hour period.  Shane Weber (City of Bremerton) asked if the parking in the neighborhood west of Charleston/Burwell had been considered in parking relocation. o Answer: No. Pedestrian volumes into the Charleston and Naval gates account for less than 5% of overall pedestrian gate volumes during the PM peak hour. The parking relocation was focused on the downtown area.  David Forte (Kitsap County) asked why the Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange had not been included in the traffic distribution. o Answer: The Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange provides access to NBK-BR most directly through the Charleston Blvd/S Cambrian Ave intersection. 80-90% of the traffic to/from S Cambrian Ave travel through the Charleston gate; therefore, the assumption is that a small percentage of traffic from the Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange is not already parking on Base. The Relocate Parking and Add Base Parking alternative focus on relocating people that currently park downtown and then walk onto Base, so traffic to/from Loxie Eagans Blvd was not included in these relocations. Emily Welter, Consultant transportation team, showed the maps that were prepared for each of the three Alternatives as well as the active transportation improvements. The CSB had the following questions:  Melinda Monroe (City of Bremerton) asked what the budget is for each improvement and when cost estimates are being developed. o Answer: Cost estimates are currently being developed for the roadway capacity improvements.  Tom Knuckey (City of Bremerton) asked if the travel delay had been quantified for each improvement. o Answer: Yes, travel delay was quantified for each Build Alternative for Second Level Screening.  Shane asked if some active transportation projects had been taken from the City’s Comp Plan and Non-motorized Plan. o Answer: Yes, light green lines are consistent with City plans and dark green lines are improvements that are being recommended as part of this project. Screening Alex discussed the screening process for this study, including developing improvements, First Level Screening, packaging the improvements into Alternatives, and Second Level Screening. She discussed the metrics used in the Second Level Screening and the final scores for each. The CSB had the following questions and suggestions:  Tom asked what bike level of traffic stress (LTS) is. o Answer: Traffic stress is defined as how comfortable a roadway feels for a person biking.  Melinda mentioned that she has recommendations for case study locations for turning parking into mixed use development as part of the economic analysis.  Tom mentioned that the City has a need for a major east-west bike corridor and supports including at least one road diet project.  Ed Coviello (Kitsap Transit) mentioned that if one or two large park and rides are built, then Kitsap Transit supports developing a shuttle service for NBK-BR only.  Melinda asked if there are specific City lots or private lots that the study team will be analyzing. o Answer: Two locations have been identified for additional parking downtown: angled parking along 4th and 5th Street between Park Ave and SR 303 (PC13) and a parking garage between Burwell St and 4th St and Park Ave and SR 303 (PC14). What Did We Learn? Alex discussed the key takeaways from the Second Level Screening analysis. The CSB had the following questions and suggestions:  Shane mentioned that the City is putting bike lanes and bike boxes on Kitsap Way and that putting in roundabouts would make it more difficult for bikes to get through the corridor.  Tom wants to understand the cost-benefit of each improvement to help put together the Preferred Alternative.  Shane asked what the process will be for putting together the Preferred Alternative. Will the study team select 1 parking alternative, or will it be a mix and match? o Answer: The Preferred Alternative will be a mix and match of improvements from different alternatives.  Shane emphasized the need for an overarching parking policy to be selected by the City.  Shane also mentioned that livability and Base accessibility are competing forces and that the City council members are interested in livability.  Tom asked if the Base cannot build 7,000 parking stalls on Base, then how many can be built? Could the Preferred Alternative include a mix of parking downtown and parking on the west side of the Base? o Answer: The study team will hope to address this with the Preferred Alternative.  Allison mentioned that the Base has identified the daily parking need to be 6,000 to 7,000.  Melinda requested that the study team provide a dollar value for each policy change. She mentioned that there are street signs needed to enforce certain parking policies and that policy changes have a cost associated with them such as new signs or enforcement.  Allison asked if the study team was able to capture how Bremerton is growing and changing (i.e. adding 3,000 housing units downtown). Are those units going to be utilized by the Base? o Answer: The travel demand modeling for the No Build condition included growth for the City and shifts in traffic for new employment and population centers. Mode shifts were not included.  Shane asked if the parking demand is for Existing or Year 2050? o Answer: Both. Forecasted growth for NBK-BR is less than 2% between 2020 and 2050, so the parking demand would likely remain the same.  Shane emphasized that there is a parking demand due to the Base. He asked if this study is looking at Base-specific parking needs and the effects on the City, or is this study looking at other parking generators in the City as well. o Answer: This study is focused on parking demand from the Base. The No Build condition does include growth from other parking generators, though.  Allison mentioned that the City is growing and there is more of a trend of people living near or on Base. She is optimistic that the parking demand will decrease over time because of this trend. Next Steps Alex discussed the next steps for the project, including identifying and analyzing a Preferred Alternative, developing preliminary cost ranges, and prioritizing modal projects. Alex asked the CSB if it is fair to assume that one of the recommendations is to build additional parking somewhere. The CSB agreed that additional parking is needed but was not in agreement on where it should be. The CSB had the following questions and suggestions:  Shane mentioned that it would be helpful to see how well each improvement is hitting the goals and metrics, as well as the cost of each.  Tom requested a metric to compare costs and benefits of different types of improvements.  Allison asked what the schedule is for putting together a Preferred Alternative? o Answer: Current schedule is to have Preferred Alternative evaluated by end of January. That may change depending on when the Preferred Alternative is clearly defined.  Tom and Shane requested more detailed data on how each improvement improves travel time, delay, safety, etc.  Allison mentioned that it will be challenging for the Base to get funding to build more parking on Base and that they need a robust explanation as to why any new parking is potentially part of the Preferred Alternative.  Katie suggested that it would be helpful to add a score for feasibility (i.e. the Add Base Parking alternative performs well but it's not feasible to build a 7,000 stall garage).  Allison said that improvements such as daycare space would more likely be funded by DoD than parking.  David mentioned that adding parking at the McWilliams P&R has implications. The County is not interested in adding parking in urbanized areas, similar to the City.  Garrett asked what the public outreach process has been. o Answer: A public information survey conducted in February, an online open house was held in February, and a second online open house is scheduled in December.  Shane asked if there has been any public feedback on parking. o Answer: Yes, but the response has been split between voices of commuters who want low-cost parking near where they want to go versus the people who live in Bremerton and want more active transportation improvements and want to improve livability.  Tom pointed out that the Support Parking and Relocate Parking alternatives look bad for travel time and mobility. He requested the results for both with just 1 road diet.  Shane asked about the impacts of the improvements on level of service. What are the magnitude of the impacts and what are the safety benefits? Shane would like to see the magnitude of benefit, not just the summary arrows.  Shane asked if the study team ran a travel demand model for improvements like road diets. He would like to see the traffic assumptions. o Answer: No, travel demand modeling was not performed for any of the Build Alternatives. The study team diverted traffic for the road diet projects based on the assumptions from the 6th and 11th Street road diet study.  Tom requested the results of just a road diet on either 6th or 11th Street.  Shane asked if the study team looked at extra lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions along Burwell St. o Answer: No, the add capacity improvement only included an additional westbound lane for a portion of Burwell St. Attendance Meeting Attendees:  Allison Satter, Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton  David Forte, Kitsap County  Ed Coviello, Kitsap Transit  Fred Salisbury, Port of Bremerton  Garrett Jackson, City of Bremerton  Greg Wheeler, City of Bremerton  Kevin Gorman, Bremerton City Council  Matthew Pahs, WSDOT Olympic Region  Melinda Monroe, City of Bremerton  Thomas Knuckey, City of Bremerton  Shane Weber, City of Bremerton  Vicki Grover, City of Bremerton Project Team:  Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton  Alex Atchison, Parametrix  Emily Welter, Parametrix  Mallory Wilde, Parametrix  Jeff Arango, Framework  Madalina Calen, Community Attributes  Sarah Saviskas, Fehr and Peers Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board June 1, 2022 Virtual Teams Meeting 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. MEETING SUMMARY Welcome Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton Public Works and Study Project Manager, welcomed the group to the fourth Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board (CSB) meeting. Since it had been several months since the last CSB meeting, Katie reviewed the purpose and goals of the project. There are unique traffic and parking issues due to Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton (NBK-BR) such as traffic surges at shift changes and limited parking and multimodal options. The goal of the project is to develop a prioritized implementation plan that addresses these issues. The CSB had the following input:  Rick Tift (PSNS) mentioned that there are 8,000 parking spaces on Base. Existing Issues and Alternatives Katie reviewed the existing issues that were identified through the early stages of the project. The project team looked at data on multiple modes of transportation and determined that 60 percent of traffic coming into Bremerton during the peak period is attributed to NBK-BR, parking habits are entrenched and involve parking illegally outside of the Base, and that by 2050, there will be significant congestion and travel times will increase along key corridors. The CSB had the following questions:  Mayor Greg Wheeler (City of Bremerton) asked for a simplified version of the corridor travel times. The project team developed over 100 potential solutions to address these issues and divided them into three different alternatives that were evaluated according to different metrics. No one alternative showed improvements to all of the metrics and two metrics were often at odds: base accessibility and livability. Visions for Final Outcome Alex Atchison, Consultant transportation lead, outlined the two main visions to be discussed by the CSB: the Livability Centered Vision and the Capacity Centered Vision. The Capacity Centered Vision would add roadway capacity, which would require significant right-of-way and could cost between from $80 million to $160 million, not including parking or active transportation improvements. Capacity projects would likely only keep up with growth instead of improving traffic or parking and may be infeasible due to environmental constraints and funding. The Livability Centered Vision would shift people from commuting by car towards commuting by transit, active transportation, and carpool/vanpool. This vision would require increased transit capacity, improved active transportation infrastructure, incentives for workers to shift modes, and parking policies, all of which would require significant coordination across different agencies. The CSB had the following input:  James Cook (PSNS) asked how the time it takes to transfer from car to bus factors into the travel times and mentioned that there are barriers to hiring staff such as allowing people to access to daycare after work.  Mayor Wheeler mentioned that in the Downtown area east of Warren Ave, there is an anticipated growth of 3,000 people living in this area.  John Clauson (Kitsap Transit) stated his vote for the Livability Centered Vision because it could provide benefits to all travelers, even outside Bremerton. He mentioned that there are other options outside of buses such as ferries, carpool, and vanpool and that now seems like a good time to implement this vision since Congress has made funds available for these types of projects. He also mentioned that the project team should look into capacity improvements that can be made available to buses, carpools, vanpools, and bicyclists.  Captain Richard Massie (NBK-BR) mentioned that they are looking at a third carrier on Base within the next 10 years. He would like to see a combination of solutions to support both visions and also look at internal solutions such as daycare within the same building. He mentioned that he is confused by statement that surface parking is not the best use of the space since these are private land owners. o Katie responded that the City recently did an economic analysis of City-owned surface parking lots and the revenue they generate compared to other possible uses.  Rick mentioned that there have been many studies that focus on Downtown Bremerton and not on the other areas that could be developed. He believes that Downtown today is a destination for employment, either in Bremerton or though commuting to Seattle. He mentioned that PSNS is making improvements, such as returning to regular shifts that align with buses. o Katie responded that the study is intended to plan ahead to manage the expected future growth Downtown. o Mayor Wheeler mentioned that the City is trying to keep Bremerton livable and keep up with the housing demand.  James asked why the City is not considering capital projects like additional private parking lots? o Katie responded that the City is in fact looking at private partnerships with developers and businesses. o Mayor Wheeler mentioned that the City has been strategically upzoning to increase density and allow duplexes and triplexes and increase housing supply. o Michael Horntvedt (Parametrix) asked if incentivizing people to drive into downtown and park at private parking lots is in alignment with the City’s goals.  Garrett Jackson (City of Bremerton) mentioned that denser housing Downtown could encourage Base employees to live downtown and shorten their commute.  Melissa Mohr (Kitsap County) mentioned the difficulties that commuters have with lower transit frequency. She also encouraged the group to consider the impacts of impervious pavement and greenhouse gases from general-purpose traffic. o John responded that transit frequency is a major factor in people’s decision to take transit and that Kitsap Transit can only increase frequency if there are more riders.  Allison Satter (NBK-BR) asked if one vision is chosen over the other, does that mean that there cannot be any improvements towards the other vision. For example, if the Livability Centered Vision is selected, that does not mean there will not be any capacity improvements. o Kite responded that capacity improvements may be needed in certain places, but they may have to be balanced with livability  Rick mentioned that changes in shipyard operations will bring more density to a smaller area within shipyard boundaries.  Allison Satter (NBK-BR) asked the City to discuss the timing for the improvements and outline which improvements are dependent on other improvements to be successful.  Melinda Monroe (City of Bremerton) mentioned it would great to have the plan broken into 5 year chunks so that the City can plan budgets.  Tom Knuckey (City of Bremerton) mentioned that here are some improvements for the Livability Centered Vision that would conflict with the Capacity Centered Vision. For example, re- channelizing 6th Street to be a road diet is important for active transportation and livability but would diminish roadway capacity.  Mayor Wheeler asked if the City is working on any signal synchronization for Kitsap Way. o Shane Weber (City of Bremerton) responded that the City is currently retiming all of the signals on Kitsap Way from SR 3 to N Callow Ave. The last time this was done was in the early 2000s.  Katie – We heard a lot of support for Livability with some reservations from the Base and concern that we can maintain accessibility to the Base. Next Steps Katie summarized the discussion by stating that there was a lot of support for the Livability Centered Vision with some reservations from the Base and concerns that accessibility to the Base be maintained. The CSB had the following input:  Allison mentioned there did seem to be interest in some capacity improvements. Attendance Meeting Attendees:  Allison Satter, Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton  Charlotte Garrido, Kitsap County  David Emmons, Bremerton Chamber of Commerce  Ed Coviello, Kitsap Transit  Garrett Jackson, City of Bremerton  Greg Wheeler, City of Bremerton  James Cook, PSNS  John Clauson, Kitsap Transit  Kate Millward, City of Bremerton  Melinda Monroe, City of Bremerton  Melissa Mohr, Kitsap County  Michael Goodnow, Bremerton City Council  Ned Lever, City of Bremerton  Para Kan, PSNS  Captain Richard Massie, Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton  Rick Tift, PSNS  Thomas Knuckey, City of Bremerton  Shane Weber, City of Bremerton  Vicki Grover, City of Bremerton Project Team:  Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton  Michael Horntvedt, Parametrix  Alex Atchison, Parametrix  Emily Welter, Parametrix Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board September 21, 2022 Virtual Teams Meeting 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. MEETING SUMMARY Welcome Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton Public Works and Study Project Manager, welcomed the group to the fifth Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board (CSB) meeting. Katie reminded the CSB of the project goals to develop solutions to resolve deficits across traffic, transit, parking, and active transportation and develop a prioritized implementation plan. Existing Issues and Alternatives Alex Atchison, Consultant project manager, walked through the project schedule and gave some context on the project. The City of Bremerton is a designated Regional Growth Center and Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton (NBK-BR) has plans for multi-billion-dollar shipyard modernizations. Alex reviewed the existing issues that were identified through the early stages of the project. The project team looked at data on multiple modes of transportation and determined that 60 percent of traffic coming into Bremerton during the peak period is attributed to NBK-BR, parking habits are entrenched and involve parking illegally outside of the Base, and that by 2050, there will be significant congestion and travel times will increase along key corridors. The CSB had the following questions:  Para Kan (PSNS) asked for clarification on what classifies as illegal parking. o Melinda Monroe (City of Bremerton) explained that it is illegal to park for the allowed amount of time and then re-park on the same named street. This is common practice in Bremerton, often called the “Bremerton Shuffle.” Draft Preferred Alternative Alex Atchison explained that 3 Build Alternatives were previously analyzed: Relocate Parking, Support Parking, and Add Base Parking. Following this analysis, the CSB discussed the two main visions for the study: Livability Centered Vision and the Capacity Centered Vision. With the input from this discussion, the study team created a draft Preferred Alternative and analyzed it according to the screening metrics. Emily Welter, Consultant transportation lead, and Alex walked through the improvements included in this draft Preferred Alternative. The CSB had the following input:  Para asked for more detail on project B7 “Add structured parking on Base” and explained that additional parking on the Base is low on the list of funding priorities.  Ed Coviello (Kitsap Transit) asked about the inclusion of a park and ride in Gorst and explained that Kitsap Transit is planning for 500 parking spaces near Port Orchard. o Para had a conversation with Mason Transit and they are willing to stop at a Gorst park and ride if it is built.  Ed mentioned that pedestrian improvements should be considered along 1st Street in addition to bicycle improvements.  Para asked about considerations for safety issues (theft, gas siphoning) at park and rides. o Ed responded that Kitsap Transit is interested in creating more mixed-use centers instead of standalone parking lots which would improve safety.  Ed mentioned that a traffic management association (TMA) may be required to be formed if population density is larger than 200k and that Bremerton may have reached this number. Emily presented the second level screening results of the 3 Build Alternatives and the draft Preferred Alternative. Alex discussed the balance between the goals for livability and base accessibility. The CSB had the following input:  Para asked about plans to build more housing downtown and the affordability. Para mentioned that about 37% of NBK-BR employees already live in Bremerton and about 80% live in Kitsap County. Para also asked about plans to address mental health issues for the homeless population downtown. o Garrett Jackson (City of Bremerton) responded that the City will be considering these issues through their Comp Plan update.  Alex asked if the City is considering uncoupling housing and parking. o Garrett responded that the lowest parking requirement for new development is currently 0.5 spaces per unit and that the City would not likely reduce this.  Allison Satter (NBK-BR) asked if the Preferred Alternative modeling assumed that a portion of the vehicles that were removed from downtown were for people living downtown. o Alex responded that the vehicles that were removed as part of the Preferred Alternative modeling were for people taking transit from outside of downtown into downtown. Discussion Alex opened the floor for discussion on the draft Preferred Alternative and implementation. The CSB had the following input:  Para mentioned that there is a driver shortage for the worker/driver program, in part due to lower pay for this job. Driving the bus is essentially a second job for many and the pay is less than what they make working on Base. He also mentioned that the shift times on Base are changing.  Ed mentioned that Kitsap Transit is looking to flatten service and run more frequently for more of the day.  Para asked about the possibly of free bus fares for NBK-BR and mentioned that Mason Transit has free fares. o Ed responded that Kitsap Transit has studied this in the past and that free fares work better for a rural system like Mason Transit.  Para and Ed discussed the challenges of the current bus fare reimbursement system for NBK-BR workers. Ed mentioned that Kitsap Transit noted an immediate drop in ridership when the worker/driver program switched from issuing monthly transit passes to a reimbursement system.  Allison asked for more information on incentives to shift modes or telework.  Allison also asked what the final report will look like. o Katie responded that the City wants something between the JLUS and the SR 303 Corridor Study. Next Steps (Alex Atchison) Alex ended the meeting by discussing the next steps, which include providing more specificity on incentives to shift modes, hosting an open house on October 11th from 6-7:30 pm, presenting the draft Preferred Alternative to City Council, and drafting the implementation plan and study report. Attendance Meeting Attendees:  Allison Satter, Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton  David Emmons, Bremerton Chamber of Commerce  Ed Coviello, Kitsap Transit  Garrett Jackson, City of Bremerton  Greg Wheeler, City of Bremerton  Melinda Monroe, City of Bremerton  Melissa Mohr, Kitsap County  Para Kan, PSNS  Shane Weber, City of Bremerton  Thomas Knuckey, City of Bremerton Project Team:  Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton  Alex Atchison, Parametrix  Emily Welter, Parametrix Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board May 17, 2023 Virtual Teams Meeting 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. MEETING SUMMARY Welcome Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton Public Works and Study Project Manager, welcomed the group to the fifth Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Community Sounding Board (CSB) meeting. Katie reminded the CSB of the project goals to develop solutions to resolve deficits across traffic, transit, parking, and active transportation and develop a prioritized implementation plan. Kate walked through the project schedule and gave some context on the project. Draft Preferred Alternative Kate recapped how the draft Preferred Alternative was developed by pulling elements from the 3 Build Alternatives that were previously analyzed, including additional parking outside of downtown, capacity projects to support this parking, shuttle service to downtown, and active transportation improvements in downtown and near NBK-BR. The City sought input on the draft Preferred Alternative from the CSB, the City Public Works Committee, and Navy and Shipyard staff. Alex Atchison, Consultant project manager, discussed the changes that were made to the Preferred Alternative based on this input. The CSB had the following input:  Allison Satter (NBK-BR) responded that she has not talked to an official SEPA rep yet, but that the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) will change one dry dock to another. It’s unclear if this will change the number of people travelling to Base.  Mayor Wheeler (City of Bremerton) talked about the balance between the neighborhoods and NBK-BR operations and mentioned that road diets make neighborhoods safer and more livable.  Shane Weber (City of Bremerton) mentioned that more traffic evaluation would need to be done for the proposed SR 3 southbound flyover ramp. o Allison mentioned that NBK-BR wants to alleviate traffic congestion for people that are driving from the north and currently use Kitsap Way to access NBK-BR. She recommended looking at it as part of the SIOP and potentially partnering with the City. o George Mazur (WSDOT) responded that WSDOT has not indicated a need for that particular traffic movement, which suggests that this is a local development-driven need. If it is just a local need, then it would be appropriate to look at that through an EIS. WSDOT is not opposed to additional study. o Ed Coviello (Kitsap Transit) mentioned that there could be utility for transit that could support a SR 3 southbound flyover ramp and that Kitsap Transit is looking at a west Bremerton park and ride as part of the Long-Range Plan.  Ed suggested using “mixed-use parking lots” instead of “smaller parking lots.” Implementation Alex discussed the phasing and implementation for the draft Preferred Alternative. Projects were separated into capital improvements and policies and assigned an owner agency. Projects were prioritized based on the goals of this study, cost level, ease of implementation, and available funding. Based on these criteria, projects were separated into short-term (less than 6 years), mid-term (6-20 years), and long-term (more than 20 years) projects. The CSB had the following input:  Garrett Jackson (City of Bremerton) mentioned that the City working on updating their Comprehensive Plan and that there is an ongoing effort in considering ways to encourage growth and density, which would positively impact NBK-BR.  Allison asked about reduced fares and if that is already available through Kitsap Transit. o Ed responded that there is currently a program.  David Forte (Kitsap County) cited a County policy that does not support building parking lots. o Alex asked if that just applies to new parking lots. o David responded that the goal is to connect communities. o Ed responded that the County’s model for park and rides in the future is more mixed-use development like the one being built in Port Orchard. Ed also mentioned that the McWilliams park and ride is owned by WSDOT and maintained by the County. o PC3 is part of Kitsap Transit’s Long-Range Plan park and ride facility. The project description should be updated.  Shane mentioned that the West Kitsap Way study is showing that roundabouts at the SR 3 Ramps/Kitsap Way intersections (C1) may not be the preferred option. o Will change language related to this strategy to “Build intersection improvements at SR 3/Kitsap Way as recommended by the West Kitsap Way study”  Shane suggested that the traffic management center will be needed in the short-term for the planned adaptive signal improvements. Consider moving this project to the near-term instead of mid-term.  Katie asked if projects C1 and C2 should still be considered mid-term? o Ed responded that project C2 may be near-term because Loxie Eagans Blvd is not up to standards.  David asked if the trigger for making improvements along Loxie Eagans Blvd will likely be the maintenance life cycle of the signal system. o George responded that there would likely be a signal upgrade and that Complete Streets would also be triggered. o Shane mentioned that WSDOT is ultimately the owner agency for the capacity projects at the SR 3 ramp terminals. He mentioned that there is a lot of development on the west end which is generating trips through that area.  Katie clarified that the goal is that all projects from SR 303 Corridor Study are finished in the long term. The package includes near-, mid-, and long-terms projects and some are already being implemented. Discussion Alex opened the floor for discussion on the draft Preferred Alternative and implementation. The CSB had the following input:  Allison asked if, separate from this study, the City is considering improvements to the electric grid to accommodate electric cars and buses. Allison also suggested that lighting may be needed for any new or improved active transportation facilities. Lastly, she asked for more clarification or an alternate term for road diets in the documentation for this project.  There was additional discussion on the proposed SR 3 southbound flyover ramp. o George mentioned that the Gorst planning study will end at Kitsap Way on the north end. o Katie asked about timing for both the Gorst planning study and the Navy’s EIS/SIOP. o Allison emphasized that the need for the SR 3 southbound flyover ramp is that people travelling to NBK-BR have to travel through the Kitsap Way or Loxie Eagans Blvd interchanges. o Katie will follow up on a potential SR 3 southbound flyover ramp study in a couple weeks. Next Steps (Alex Atchison) Alex ended the meeting by discussing the next steps, which include drafting the study plan and report, bringing the draft plan and report to Council for adoption, and finalizing the plan and report. Attendance Meeting Attendees:  Allison Satter, Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton  David Forte, Kitsap County  Ed Coviello, Kitsap Transit  Garrett Jackson, City of Bremerton  George Mazur, WSDOT  Greg Wheeler, City of Bremerton  James Cook, PSNS  Nicole Leaptrot-Figueras, Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton  Shane Weber, City of Bremerton  Thomas Knuckey, City of Bremerton Project Team:  Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton  Alex Atchison, Parametrix  Emily Welter, Parametrix 1 | Page City of Bremerton Complete Streets Committee Meeting Minutes for November 4, 2021 10:00 am Attendees: Diane Iverson, Resident John Larson, Resident JR Kinnison, Resident Dana Bierman, Kitsap Public Health Allison Satter, Naval Base Kitsap Marco DiCicco, Bremerton School District Dan Penrose, SCJ Alliance Aaron Knight, SCJ Alliance Shane Weber, City of Bremerton Jeff Elevado, City of Bremerton Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton Tom Knuckey, City of Bremerton Ned Lever, City of Bremerton Vicki Grover, City of Bremerton Cathy Bonsell, City of Bremerton Presentation, Poll and Discussion: Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan City of Bremerton Project Manager Katie Ketterer Committee Comments to alternatives presented: • Support parking alternatives with capacity alternatives, expand parking, HOV lanes o Marco: would school busses be permitted to use HOV lanes? Shane did not know why not • Relocate parking to away from downtown core (Policies to encourage alternate transportation modes / discourage single occupant commuter vehicles) • Add Parking on base; HOV lane into City, Burwell Capacity improvements, discourage downtown parking, alterations to Navy gates to add capacity o John: if on base parking allowed would it really affect off base parking? o Dianne: Would outside base parking be eliminated with this option? (No, it would be additional) o Dianne asks about incentive programs to encourage other options- Katie discussed successful worker driver partnership, but it is restrictive; one solution might be to find ways to make more successful. Dianne also suggests option for NBK to offer incentives to park outside the City (Park & Rides) General presentation comments o Tom & John: Is there a way to quantify effects of study (cost pf parking garage spaces per car, cost of lost of potential revenue to businesses), and less quantifiable (are home sales affected with parking restrictions?) o John: believes walking and bicycling should be treated separately (within active transportation) when the usage requirements are different 2 | Page • Poll to be resent to committee members with definitions Presentation and Discussion: Warren Avenue Bridge Pedestrian Improvements City of Bremerton Project Manager Vicki Grover, SCJ Alliance Committee Comments following Presentation: • Provide definitions for language used in questionnaires. Dianne • Provide a cost analysis for each alternative. Safety is very important. • Would prefer a 12’ facility on each side but concerned about costs. • Existing north side undercrossing at Lebo improves the value of west side only option • Tunnels can be a big asset if constructed properly. Incl lights, surfacing, bike police/security. More users = more safety. • Improve Olympic College connectivity • Tunnel may be better than widening both sides of the bridge • Two-way traffic on the shared use path options can be user friendly. • Please explain total width of the sidewalk vs shared use path with shoulders. • Provide option of high-speed bikes to use the travel lane • Project should be fundable at a reasonable cost • Full access in all directions • Will send photos of a tunnel example Tom • prefers shared use path on the east side because it avoids additional road crossings. Unused side of the bridge on the 1-sided widening alternatives shouldn’t remain open; could become unsightly (collect trash or encourage loitering). It would be preferred to remove them. • Could a minimum sidewalk width with an opposing shared use path be feasible? Could the shoulders be narrowed to accommodate this? • Crossing alternatives on each end should be included with each bridge alternative • Presentation summary slide should clarify that the one-sided options are 16’ total width. • Could the unused space opposite of the one-sided options be a bike facility? • Asked the group if an at-grade crossing at the future roundabout north of the bridge would be a viable option for the north end crossing. Shane • WSDOT Olympic Region traffic, meeting forthcoming to confirm roadway section and lane widths. • Timing of the two projects will not overlap • High speed downhill bikes should be considered for their impact on bi-directional options. • Asked the group “What is Connectivity” to them John • What is the lifespan of the bridge and how long does this project extend the life? • Connectivity to adjacent sections of Warren should be considered 3 | Page • There are a lot of people walking on the bridge at nighttime • East side of the bridge is where most volume is. • Alternate 4 needs connectivity to Olympic College • Prefers both 3 & 4, separate shared use paths. • Would like to know if the alternatives accommodate bike usage for 30 years (remaining life) • West side options should have ability to stop to enjoy the view Marco • City should avoid construction on the Manette roundabout at the same time as Warren Ave Bridge work. Aaron • Define goals. One could be “All ages and abilities” • Discussion about if the presented alternatives are the proper alternatives. 16’ path options should be combined into an A/B option 4 • Replace Option 3 with a 12’ facility on each side ACTION ITEMS • Provide City Parking Enforcement Contact to JR Kinnison • Ensure both presentations are available on the City’s Complete Streets webpage • Re-send JCTP poll to committee members with definitions • Dianne Iverson to label and send photos NEXT MEETING End of February/Beginning of March 2022 Committee will be briefed on the Naval Avenue Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements Project Attachment C. Complete Streets Committee Meeting Summaries Meeting Minutes 1 05/17/2022 Complete Streets Committee MEETING MINUTES LOCATION: Zoom MEETING DATE: 05/17/2022 TIME: 10:00 AM SUBJECT: Bremerton Complete Streets Committee – 2022 Q2 Project Discussion ATTENDEES: RESIDENTS: John Larson, Dianne Iverson COB: Vicki Grover, Shane Weber, Katie Ketterer, Jeff Elevado, Ned Lever, Tom Knuckey, Vicki Johnson BSD: Marco DiCicco KPHD: Karen Boysen-Knapp KITSAP TRANSIT: Stephanie Lillie USN: Allison Satter 1. Introductions Dianne Iverson thanked everyone for all of their hard work. 2. 2022 Grants – PSRC 11th Street Preservation Project and SR 303 Adaptive Signal Technology Project 3. View Ridge Elementary School Project - Safe Routes to Schools Grant • Originally, the City was not selected for a Grant, but recently received the “Go Ahead” from WSDOT. Two years ago, WSDOT had no additional funding but now the State of Washington has put up $4.1 million with the City contributing $1.4 million to move forward. o The need was identified for Sylvan Way to Ivy Road; bike lanes were not solidified to get children to View Ridge Elementary. • The City is still in the planning stages and would like feedback from the group. o Feedback is requested for the children to connect with bike path to the non-motorized path. o A north/south connection is needed. • Phase I – Three times the amount of funding is now available. o Phase I had 6-foot sidewalks between Sylvan Way and Ivy Road; bike lanes; 2 RFBs, road reconstruction; and a ditch for stormwater. • Phase II is the grant for View Ridge Elementary. o Almira Drive/Ivy Road to NE Riddell Road. o There’s a new housing development on Riddell Road. • Some background – Coordinate closely with Bremerton School District as the City did with sidewalks to Kitsap Lake; sidewalks on Almira; and a no bus zone on Ivy Road. • How do we get the sidewalks on Almira Drive to View Ridge Elementary? Do we want sidewalks and bike lanes on the west side of Almira or on both sides? • Speeds on Sylvan Road with children and bicycles are a concern. • There is a need for a shared-use path across Sylvan Way to E. 33rd Street. o There is an alleyway through the library property and Ts onto E. 33rd St. • The long-range vision would be a shared use path from Sheridan Road to Sylvan Way, and a shared use path onto E. 33rd Street. • There are bike lanes planned on Almira Drive with a path on E. 32nd Street and a bike path down the alley. MEETING MINUTES (Continued) Meeting Minutes 2 05/17/2022 Complete Streets Committee • We need a shared use path from Sheridan Road to Sylvan Way. • Dianne Iverson stated she is excited about the WSDOT Grant. o She is in favor of a path west of the alleyway. o She cited a 2016 letter from Kitsap Regional Library where they said they would be excited to have children on the property. o E. 33rd Street has less traffic and is safer for the children. o Eighty-eight homes went in on Almira Drive in 2016, all of the children are driven the four blocks to school due to safety concerns. • John Larson stated that a path is needed to connect further. o Sylvan Way to Spruce Avenue, it’s a bad crossing for children, assistance is needed for crossing. o Tom Knuckey stated there are RFBs at the crossing. o Shane Weber stated there is an RFB at Spruce in the current plan as part of a separate project. o John commented that Almira has two crossing points where the young children need assistance; and asked if guard are needed? • Marco DiCicco of Bremerton School District stated there are very few educators for guards, and that Sylvan and Spruce are designated crossings. o He mentioned there is a large transient population living in the woods behind the school. o He likes connecting the roads; there’s security at the school. o He likes RFBs and the idea of E. 33rd Street and the library.  They can redeploy crossing guards.  They have 12 substitute paraeducators for the whole district, so they would have to redeploy the staff that they have.  The child-related jobs are paraeducators, which are drawn from staffing and adults when off school grounds. o Shane Weber inquired about security and a shared-use path on the south side of E. 33rd Street.  Marco stated approximately 1.5 years ago, the district put up security fencing and gates to keep out people who don’t belong on school grounds.  The path must fit in the Security Plan. Outside of the fencing is fine, but along the back of the fencing needs to be approved by Security.  Outside of the path, more lighting is needed and a wide area to walk through.  The school has K-5th grade children, the safety of them is most-important.  Possibly remove some trees for security. • Ned Lever there is a new requirement from WSDOT for bike lanes to school. o Grant money has been offered, but the new requirement is for the bike lane, so we are trying to solve that. o The path to Sheridan has two parts: the north end to Almira Drive and the path to Sheridan Road. • We could use help strategizing to get a shared-use path. o The long-range vision is for a north/south route for bicyclists.  Almira Drive  South from Almira Drive to the Manette Bridge and into West Bremerton. MEETING MINUTES (Continued) Meeting Minutes 3 05/17/2022 Complete Streets Committee •Phase II – Ivy Road to NE Riddell Road o The project includes: curb ramps, crossings, traffic calming, six-foot sidewalks, a bike lane, and pipe for stormwater. o New sidewalks or a bike lane for most of the road. What makes sense for crossings? •Dianne Iverson agreed with comments about security and the path behind the school. o She stated that Boise Police Department patrols in areas where there are paths. o She said that Hollis Street is a major corridor with a traffic light; there is a lot of traffic making a left turn on Almira Drive from Hollis. Traffic calming at Hollis/Amira is needed, possibly a small roundabout? Speed is the number one issue as the road encourages speed. o Shane Weber commented that there are complaints about speed there, it’s a popular cut- through. •Marco DiCicco said that sidewalks are needed, there are bus stops on Almira and Ivy. o They need a set walk zone for the Elementary kids; wide sidewalks are better. o The buses try to stop 1.5 bus lengths from the intersections so there is a place for kids to gather and be seen. o There’s a stop on Clemens Street and Worrall Drive; Hollis Street may be better. o He is concerned about the buses and a roundabout but wants traffic calming for 40-foot buses. •Diane Iverson commented that some children are let out at the ditches due to the intersections. •Shane Weber asked Marco DiCicco about widening the sidewalks where the buses stop? o Marco stated they need six-foot sidewalks for congregating and to get on and off the bus. •Diane Iverson asked about mountable sidewalks, and what were the downsides of them; the curb acts as a barrier and a six-inch curb feels safer. o Fourteen-foot sidewalks for pedestrians and bicycles makes it easy for bikes get in and out of the path. o Shane Weber said a lot of pedestrians are for that, but a trip hazard exists. •Katie Ketterer commented that if you have a mountable curb, people will park on the sidewalk. o John Larson suggested angel street parking or parallel parking. o Shane Weber commented that people don’t like angled parking, regardless if it’s front or back angled in. •There’s parallel parking on Almira currently, but you have to make sure the bike lane doesn’t get impacted by the door swing. •Put a bike lane in the drive lane side as a through-route for bicyclists; similar to Lebo Blvd. west of the Warren Avenue Bridge. •John Larson said it would be helpful to show the lane and how it would work; Shane Weber said that we need to look at it in the Design phase. •Dianne Iverson said there’s a Kitsap Transit stop, senior living area, a bike lane and a bus stop. o Stephane Lillie said the buses run infrequently, every half hour, and it would be best to route the bike lane behind the bus stop. 4.6th Street Re-channelization Project – WSDOT Pedestrian and Bike Grant •Has been in the works for a couple of years. MEETING MINUTES (Continued) Meeting Minutes 4 05/17/2022 Complete Streets Committee •The plan is for bicycles on 6th Street. •Feasibility Study o Burwell, 6th and 11th Streets. o Recommendation is for 6th Street, turn four lanes into three lanes with a bike lane. o Install a center turn lane. o From 11th Street/Kitsap Way intersection to Washington Avenue. o The consultant is preparing the concept; it’s not far enough along to show. •Feedback on the project is appreciated; Katie Ketterer is working on it. •Applied for a grant from WSDOT in June 2022. •Tom Knuckey stated that it’s a significant decision for the City, it will be discussed with the City Council and there will be public input. o The Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan (JCTP) will be the best place for comments. •The grant process was discussed – We applied for the grant, then present it before the Finance Committee and City Council to move everything forward. 5.Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan (JCTP)- Public Outreach •Katie Ketterer presented. •The big presentation was at a November 2021 meeting. •There will be a community sounding board in June and at City Council. •Early- to mid-July, there will be a public Open House to share preliminary preferred alternative. •In October 2022, we will be doing the final refinement of preferred alternative after getting more feedback from a September 2022 Open House. •The Final Report should be done by December 31, 2023. •Next steps: o Prioritize goals based on feedback. o Identify and analyze preferred alternatives. o Solicit feedback. o Dates yet? At least four to six weeks out; we can send them when they’re known. Attachment: Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Phase 1 Grant, Figures 1 & 2 NEXT REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETINGS: Q3 - Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10am-12pm on ZOOM Q4 - Tuesday, November 8, 2022 10am-12pm on ZOOM FIGURE 1 VIEW RIDGE ELEMENTARY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 1 INCH = 200 FT. 2000 FIGURE 2 VIEW RIDGE ELEMENTARY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL Attachment D. Open House Summaries 1 Last updated: February 18, 2021 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Virtual Open House February 9, 2021 Via Zoom Meeting 5 – 6:15 p.m. MEETING SUMMARY Overview On Feb. 9, 2021, the City of Bremerton hosted a virtual open house to introduce the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan, which aims to address traffic and parking concerns to support Naval Base Kitsap- Bremerton (NBK-BR) and community growth. The project team explained why the City is planning transportation improvements and shared the study timeline, including future outreach milestones. The project team encouraged attendees to participate in the public information survey and visit the project website for updates. Notifications The team promoted the virtual open house through a variety of channels, including:  Email invitations sent to community members who expressed prior interest in the study.  Email invitations sent from Community Sounding board members to their constituencies.  Social media posts advertised on the City’s Facebook page from Feb. 1-9.  Flyers to local businesses and community-based organizations.  Announcements on project partner websites including NBK-BR website. Objectives The virtual open house offered an accessible way for the City of Bremerton to introduce the study to community members when in-person gatherings are restricted due to COVID-19. The meeting was interactive, allowing attendees to view a presentation and leave comments through either the comment box or verbally during the question and answer portion of the meeting. The City’s main objectives included:  Introducing the study and explaining why the City and NBK-BR are working to improve transportation in the Bremerton area.  Gathering input about the corridor issues, needs and opportunities for improvements.  Notifying community members about future opportunities to provide feedback to help inform the project. Meeting Overview The City hosted the virtual open house using Zoom from 5 – 6:15 p.m. A total of 31 community members participated in the meeting. 2 Last updated: February 18, 2021 The virtual open house team included:  Katie Ketterer, Project Manager, City of Bremerton  Greg Wheeler, Mayor, City of Bremerton  Tom Knuckey, Director of Public Works and Utilities, City of Bremerton  Michael Horntvedt, Consultant Project Manager, Parametrix  Emily Welter, Facilitator, Parametrix  Artie Nelson, Note taker, PRR Katie Ketterer, project manager, welcomed attendees to the virtual open house and introduced the panelists. Mayor Greg Wheeler provided additional opening remarks and Katie gave an overview of the study and presentation topics. She highlighted several key issues the City is working to resolve, including congestion in and around NBK-BR, parking constraints, lack of options for people walking and biking, and projected growth. The City and NBK-BR are partnering to address these challenges. Michael Horntvedt, consultant project manager, discussed the process of selecting and implementing a preferred alternative to address the issues and needs related to the study area. He described how the City will work with project partners and the community to inform possible solutions and highlighted upcoming opportunities for input. Michael encouraged participants to take the survey and to ask their neighbors and friends to take the survey. He let them know it would be important to learn more from the public about how they travel in and around Bremerton. Comment Summary The project team invited participants to share questions and comments after the presentation by “raising their hand” to speak or typing comments into the chat box. Emily Welter, facilitator, and the project team responded to 21 questions and comments from community members. Below is a summary of key themes:  A couple of participants asked about Community Sounding Board (CSB) representation and offered suggestions for additional members, including the Non-motorized Citizens Advisory Committee, West Sound Bicycling Club, and a resident who lives in the neighborhood near NBK- BR.  A few participants shared comments about the pedestrian safety and traffic issues in the Gorst Corridor and asked the project team to focus on solutions in that area as well.  A couple of participants shared comments about traffic congestion along SR 304 and SR 3 and shared potential solutions, for example: o Signage along the routes to educate motorists about merging. o Building a bridge that connects SR 3 to SR 16.  A couple of participants asked about how the pandemic affect’s the study teams’ approach and projections for the future of travel throughout the City.  A couple of participants shared that the City should make sure current projects related to pedestrian improvements throughout the area move forward as planned during the Joint Compatibility Transportation Study.  A few participants asked what transit models the City plans to use to evaluate different options. o A couple of people also asked if the City is looking at other cities outside of the U.S. for examples on how to address transit issues, i.e., how Dutch cities configure bicycle and pedestrian connections.  A couple of participants shared comments about adding more affordable parking downtown. 3 Last updated: February 18, 2021  One participant asked about long-term funding to build the project. Next Steps The project team will continue to gather input from the Community Sounding Board and project partners to ensure study meets the needs of the community. The City will host another virtual open house in August to report back and share screening results, design refinements, and other new information. All virtual open house materials are available on the project website. 4 Last updated: February 18, 2021 Appendix: Meeting Transcript 00:43:25 Katie Ketterer: Some helpful links: 00:43:34 Katie Ketterer: Project webpage link: www.BremertonWa.gov/JCTP Project survey link: http://bit.ly/CommuteBremerton 00:44:58 Phil Babcock: Thanks Katie! 00:49:22 Rick Feeney: West Sound Cycling Club would be a "valuable" formal member of the CSB. 00:58:28 Charles Michel: Should not a rep from the Complete Streets committee be in the community focus group? 00:58:39 Paul Nelson: Is a Gorst bypass an option? 01:00:34 Paul Dutky: Local businesses are on the sounding board; I think someone who lives in the closest neighborhood to the base would add tremendous value to the committee. 01:02:13 Rick Feeney: The Non-Motorized Citizens Advisory Committee can also give good information on linking up to Kitsap County. 01:02:24 Edward Coviello - Kitsap Transit: We are looking for transit ideas as well. Ed 01:02:42 Paul Dutky: This is Dianne. How does an agency project the future LOS when the pandemic has affected our new normal and we have young professionals who are not so car centric? 01:02:46 Galaxy S9+: sorry if I missed it but did you cover schedule of the study? 01:05:43 Luke Price: it is on the shipyard homepage. 01:09:48 Jake Parks mobile: is the goal to accommodate all modes of transportation equally, or will there be considerations to push in a certain direction that may negatively impact some modes? how will those decisions be made? 01:12:41 Galaxy S9+: what is the plan for balancing policy driven initiatives versus the need to address concurrency issues. population will grow and mobility will continue to increase in demand. Are we discussing accepting worse LOS for passenger vehicles to promote transit and active transportation modes? 01:12:48 Luke Price: are alternative options being investigated in good faith? Many car capacity issues would be solved by fewer cars, that are not solved by adding extra lanes 01:13:07 Rick Feeney: Remember the in-depth plan for a shared use path from Gorst to Bremerton. 01:13:51 Rick Feeney: ...to go along with the 3-lane expansion. 5 Last updated: February 18, 2021 01:14:30 Paul Dutky: This is Dianne. How is active transportation being addressed in the Gorst corridor? Currently it is very unsafe to cycle the highway. 01:17:52 Phil Babcock: I would like to feel safe riding my bike on errands around the city. Will there be plans for expanding bike parking and safe bike and pedestrian corridors on the major east/west and north/south corridors through the city? 01:20:39 Britany Ashley: Are there plans for increased affordable parking downtown? Maybe more garages? 01:21:10 Luke Price: yes! 01:23:56 Luke Price: thanks, Charles. 01:25:03 Jake Parks mobile: are you looking at example cities for different modes? I know like the Dutch have cycling figured out, maybe other cities are great at walkability, and others may have dealt with huge commuter stress like the shipyard. are we looking to existing proven solutions? 01:28:09 Rick Feeney: WSCC appreciates the direction the City of Bremerton is taking with multi-modal transportation. 01:28:49 Tom Knuckey: Here is the link to the 2021 Construction Map. 01:28:59 Tom Knuckey: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7809/2020- Construction-Map-PDF?bidId= . 01:29:26 Phil Babcock: Are there plans to look at expanding and increasing the frequency of bus routes around the city and county? 01:33:31 Edward Coviello - Kitsap Transit: Yes, there is a long-range planning study now that will look at this, it will display what the costs will be to implement more frequent transit 01:33:59 Edward Coviello - Kitsap Transit: There will be a public outreach process this spring and summer. 01:34:40 Jake Parks mobile: as a ferry commuter, I appreciate what Bremerton has done in the last few years for that mode. As a bicycle commuter, I appreciate your upcoming work! 01:35:16 Luke Price: are you looking into long-term funding? i.e., after federal grants dry up is new infrastructure sustainable at projected tax levels. 01:36:34 Edward Coviello - Kitsap Transit: For transit, our Long-Range Plan will identify the funding gaps to implement transit improvements. 01:37:18 Phil Babcock: Thanks all! 1 Last updated: December 10, 2021 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Virtual Open House December 2, 2021 Via Zoom Meeting 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. MEETING SUMMARY Overview On December 2, 2021, the City of Bremerton hosted a virtual open house to share updates on the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan, which aims to address traffic and parking concerns to support Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton (NBK-BR) and community growth. The project team explained why the City is planning transportation improvements, and shared project goals, study results, and a handful of project alternatives the City has begun to evaluate. The project team encouraged attendees to ask questions following the presentation and visit the project website for more information and updates. Notifications The team promoted the virtual open house through a variety of channels, including: · Email invitations sent to community members who completed or expressed interest in the study. · Email invitations sent from Community Sounding board members to their constituencies. · Social media posts advertised on the City’s Facebook page on November 19th. · Advertisement on roadway billboard on SR 303 and SR 3 from November 19 – 29th. · Announcements on project partner websites including NBK-BR website. Objectives The virtual open house offered an accessible way for the City of Bremerton to share project updates and study results with community members, while limiting in-person gatherings due to COVID-19. The meeting was interactive, allowing attendees to view a presentation and leave comments through either the comment box or verbally during the question and answer portion of the meeting. The City’s objectives included: · Reintroducing the study and explaining why the City and NBK-BR are working to improve transportation in the Bremerton area · Sharing project goals and schedule updates, as well as project milestones and accomplishments · Reporting back on what we heard in the survey and describing how the project team uses feedback to consider project alternatives · Sharing early findings of project alternative analysis · Notifying community members about future opportunities to provide feedback to help inform the project. 2 Last updated: December 10, 2021 Meeting Overview The City hosted the virtual open house using Zoom from 5:30 – 6:45 p.m. The virtual open house team included: · Katie Ketterer, Project Manager, City of Bremerton · Greg Wheeler, Mayor, City of Bremerton · Michael Horntvedt, Consultant Project Manager, Parametrix · Alex Atchison, Transportation Lead, Parametrix · Lizzy Buechel, Notetaker, PRR Katie Ketterer, project manager, welcomed attendees to the virtual open house and introduced Mayor Greg Wheeler who shared additional opening remarks. Katie gave an overview of the project and presentation topics. She described key issues the City is working to resolve, including congestion in and around NBK-BR, parking constraints, lack of options for people walking and biking, and projected growth. Katie described how the City and NBK-BR are partnering to address these challenges. Katie described the project goals, including studying existing and future transportation issues and developing solutions to resolve them. Katie explained that the project team will evaluate options to mitigate transportation and parking demands and develop a prioritized implementation plan to solve challenges in a balanced, integrated way. Katie emphasized the project team’s focus to develop multimodal solutions that consider both the livability of downtown Bremerton and access to NBK-BR. Katie provided an overview of the project schedule and shared recent milestones since the last public meeting. The project team has convened several community sounding board meetings; launched and completed a public survey; considered issues, needs, and existing conditions in the project area; developed a project list and evaluation screening method; and began evaluating potential projects. Michael Horntvedt, consultant project manager, shared a summary of community survey results and explained how those findings helped the project team develop and begin evaluating project alternatives. Michael shared that around 600 people responded to the survey. Of those people, about 85% traveled to Bremerton for work. Most respondents shared that they travel into Bremerton, while the remainder travel through the city to get to final destinations. Over 60% of respondents declared they travel to downtown Bremerton to access the naval base area. Michael described survey questions and results, including respondents preferred travel method. Over 50% of survey respondents shared they drive alone. When asked what they need to use transit, survey respondents shared they would like more frequent, and direct service as well as extended operation times for transit. People shared that they would use a van pool or carpool services if parking were convenient, but don’t know where to begin to establish them. Respondents would like the assurance of free rides home in the case of emergencies. Respondents also favored increased shift flexibility and extended operating times for the Worker Driver Bus. Overall, people want convenient and flexible transportation options. The survey asked what people need to feel safer while biking. Respondents support protected bike lanes, separated from the road with bumpers or painted markers. They also suggested new and improved bike lanes throughout the corridor. 3 Last updated: December 10, 2021 Michael explained how the project team used survey results to consider project alternatives. This community input helped the team prioritize needs and develop categories including projects focused on roadway capacity improvements, shipyard access, roadway efficiency and safety (which involves signal timing/intersection control), active travel improvements, and parking solutions. Michael shared some examples of specific projects under consideration in each category. Some of these projects included: · Adding lanes on critical corridors (specifically adding a second lane throughout Burwell Street) · Placing roundabouts at key locations · Modifying gates to improve access to the shipyard and reduce congestion on local roadways · Increasing transit accessibility by increasing the frequency of Kitsap Transit and Worker Driver Buses and expanding parking availability at park and ride lots · Expanding access to active transportation by constructing ramps and more bike lanes throughout the city · Road diets that use roadway space more efficiently · Incentives for mode shifts including partnerships with employers and updated parking policies. Michael shared early findings from evaluations of these considerations. Michael explained that reconfiguring 11th and 6th streets would likely impact mobility in the city, and reconfiguring 6th street only may be more feasible. He also explained that City may update traffic signal technology early in the implementation phase to benefit mobility throughout the city. Michael concluded that building parking alone for all of the base demand would be cost prohibitive. Comment Summary The project team invited participants to share questions and comments after the presentation by “raising their hand” to speak or typing comments into the chat box. Katie and Michael responded to questions and comments from community members including: · Has Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) and Kitsap Transit considered a shipyard worker ferry stop for South Kitsap Shipyard workers to the end of a pier into Shipyard (e.g., near DD5)? · Is the ferry rider parking lot on Montgomery and Callow open to PSNS employees who carpool? · Does PSNS offer benefits to employees who carpool or use other alternatives to driving alone? · Will the decision around reconfiguring 6th street happen prior to the third phase of paving? · Will the City survey people who live next to the base? · Are there considerations for a covered bike structure near PSNS? · Have you engaged a community developer for alternative options and financing for parking garages? The developer could build a structure that compliments the city and surroundings, with options to add housing. · When can we expect changes to address big concerns? · There were a few questions about the Sherwood Drive bicycle access project, including how to provide input and get more information. · Is there a fee for PSNS employees to park cars on base? · Have you considered how folks would get to work from Gorst in emergency situations? · It seems like we have enough space for two ten story parking garages. Can you expand and explain why that’s not an option? 4 Last updated: December 10, 2021 · We need a 1st street contra flow bike lane to get from Callow bike lane to Naval Ave to 4th street to complete a route to downtown Bremerton and the ferry system. Burwell is not wide enough to accommodate bike and vehicle traffic. · Has the city considered adding electric scooters and bikes to make it easier for employees to park farther away and then commute to the ferry or shipyard? · Will the study consider zoning changes near transit stops or the shipyard to reduce reliance on longer-distance transit? · Are there any other programs or grants to support implementing this project? · Could the City place parking garages further away in West Bremerton and provide buses into NBK- BR? · There were a few comments expressing support for covered bike parking and cycling facilities, as well as road diets for 6th street · Suggestions for a sky tram. · Could the City and NBK-BR work with local developers to create parking options? Next Steps After summarizing early findings from the project team’s evaluations, Michael shared the team’s next steps to complete the plan. Michael shared the project team will: 1. Continue to collaborate with the community sounding board members and public for feedback 2. Continue evaluating preliminary alternatives to understand the benefits of various projects 3. Refine the preferred project list to ensure a balanced, integrated set of solutions 4. Estimate costs and potential implementation schedules 5. Share results at the next public open house, around May 2021 Michael and Katie encouraged participants to visit the project web page for more information. 1 Last updated: November 7, 2022 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Virtual Open House October 11, 2022 Via Zoom Meeting 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. MEETING SUMMARY Overview On October 22, 2022, the City of Bremerton hosted a virtual open house to share updates o the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan, which aims to address traffic and parking concerns to support Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton (NBK-BR) and community growth. The project team reviewed the purpose of the study, the work to date and presented the preferred alternative. The project team encouraged attendees to ask questions following the presentation and visit the project website for more information and updates. Notifications The team promoted the virtual open house through a variety of channels, including:  Email invitations sent to community members who completed or expressed interest in the study.  Email invitations sent from Community Sounding board members to their constituencies.  Social media posts advertised on the City’s Facebook page from October 3, 2022.  Flyers to local businesses and community-based organizations.  Announcements on project partner websites including NBK-BR website. Objectives The virtual open house offered an accessible way for the City of Bremerton to share project updates and study results with community members, while limiting in-person gatherings due to COVID-19. The meeting was interactive, allowing attendees to view a presentation and leave comments through either the comment box or verbally during the question-and-answer portion of the meeting. The City’s objectives included:  Review the purpose of the study and explaining why the City and NBK-BR are working to improve transportation in the Bremerton area  Sharing project goals  Sharing the evaluation process that led to the preferred alternative  Sharing the preferred alternative  Notifying community members about future opportunities to provide feedback to help inform the project. Meeting Overview The City hosted the virtual open house using Zoom from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m. 2 Last updated: November 7, 2022 The virtual open house team included:  Katie Ketterer, Project Manager, City of Bremerton  Greg Wheeler, Mayor, City of Bremerton  Alex Atchison, Consultant Project Manager, Parametrix Katie Ketterer, project manager, welcomed attendees to the virtual open house and introduced Mayor Greg Wheeler who shared additional opening remarks. Katie gave an overview of the project and presentation topics. She described key issues the City is working to resolve, including congestion in and around NBK-BR, parking constraints, lack of options for people walking and biking, and projected growth. Katie described how the City and NBK-BR are partnering to address these challenges. Katie described the project goals, including studying existing and future transportation issues and developing solutions to resolve them. Katie explained that the project team is evaluating options to mitigate transportation and parking demands and develop a prioritized implementation plan to solve challenges in a balanced, integrated way. Katie emphasized the project team’s focus to develop multimodal solutions that consider both the livability of downtown Bremerton and access to NBK-BR. Alex Atchison, consultant project manager, shared a summary how the team put together the preferred alternative. The project team identified the issues through several sources, including analyzing existing data, reviewing previous plans in the area, and incorporating public input. The issues identified included congestion, parking frustrations, poor sidewalks, difficulty biking to work, transit frustrations, and the need to accommodate growth in the City. The list of solutions was complied from public input, ideas from the project team and results of analyzing the existing issues. Using the issues identified, the project team explored multiple solutions including adding travel lanes on City arterials, adding dedicated bus lanes, improvements to inflow at the Base gates, adding bike lanes, mass transit options, including rail, replacing traffic signals with roundabouts, adding parking downtown and/or on Base and safety projects. Alex then explained that the solutions were evaluated, considering high level elements such as were the solutions feasible and were they consistent with the project’s vision. Solutions were also evaluated for effectiveness using metrics including travel times, mobility, safety, parking, improvements to active transportation, economic viability, base accessibility, and livability. Alex explained the key elements of the preferred alternative included:  Provide additional parking outside of downtown in strategic locations  Build roadway improvement projects that make roads more efficient and support all users  Provide shuttle service to get from additional parking to downtown quickly, efficiently, and safely  Implement policies to encourage mode shift  Focus on creating a safe, efficient network of sidewalks and bike lanes in downtown and neighborhoods surrounding the Base 3 Last updated: November 7, 2022 Alex explained that 38 solutions were included in the Preferred Alternative. The solutions included signal improvements, roundabouts, bicycle Improvements, pedestrian Improvements, base gate improvements, new parking, parking management and policies, transit service improvements, Park & Ride improvements, and programs to encourage mode shift. The approximate cost, without including new parking, is approximately $131 million. Four new parking structures are proposed in the preferred alternative, with costs ranging from $23 to $103 million dollars. The total estimated cost of the parking structures was $200 million. Alex then walked through graphics depicting the elements of the Preferred Alternative. The graphic can be found on the project website. Alex explained the benefits of the solutions included in the Preferred Alternative. The sidewalk and bike lane projects will help create a walkable/bikeable community that is attractive to live and work. Project examples include improving all sidewalks within a 10-minute walk of the Base gates to make it easier for all users to walk / roll. The new bike facilities on Shorewood Drive, 6th Street, Naval Ave and 1st Street will connect with existing bike facilities to help create a connected bike system across the city. Alex explained that project will make it easier and safer to access the Base by alternate modes. Examples include protected bike lanes, express shuttle service from park-and-rides and incentives to use transit and other modes. The project will help reduce the number of people using single occupancy vehicles, helping to reduce congestion. Examples include incentivizing mode shifts, providing parking outside of downtown coupled with shuttles, and allowing teleworking options. Another benefit of the project is the use of technology to improve roadway efficiency. Examples include adaptive signal technology to help reduce delays and adding a Traffic Management Center to help the city monitor traffic and direct and support incident response to keep roads clear and traffic moving safely Katie brought the presentation to a close, sharing the team’s next steps. The project team will: 1. Refine the preferred alternative based on feedback. Katie encouraged participants to fill out an online comment form found at www.bremertonwa.gov/jctp 2. Present the preferred alternative to the City Council 3. Finalize the preferred alternative and draft the plan and report 4. Bring the draft plan and report to the Council for adoption 5. Finalize the plan and report Katie encouraged participants to visit the project web page for more information. Mayor Wheeler noted that the city would like as much feedback as possible from the project, a key to the project’s success. Comment Summary The project team invited participants to share questions and comments after the presentation by “raising their hand” to speak or typing comments into the chat box. Katie and Alex responded to questions and comments from community members including:  Comment: what is a parking management zone? And does it involve metering? o Answer: This involves several strategies to meet the goal of providing a better balance between commuter parking and business parking. Could include metered parking, validated parking, vouchers, etc. 4 Last updated: November 7, 2022  Commentor noted that the plan seems strategic and detailed.  Comment: Is the roundabout proposed at Naval / 6th was multi-lane. o Answer: the roundabout is proposed as a single lane roundabout. It is not part of the current Naval Ave project. It is one of the longer-term improvements proposed.  Comment: Will the “all-walk” timing on Park Street cause queuing? o Answer: The City will double check on if the project causes any unintended queues.  Comment: This project looks excellent! Will there be a phased implementation? Would like to see the bike lane on First Street come first and suggested it be implemented with blocks and markers. o Answer: The study report will include an implementation plan.  Comment: How many cars need to be removed from the downtown area? And how many family housing units will be built in the future between Warren Avenue and the waterfront? o Answer: the analysis looked the year 2050 and the project team estimated approximately 1,000 single occupancy vehicles in the PM peak hour shifted to another mode. This a fairly conservative assumption considering the number of vehicles overall in the PM peak. It was also based on survey results from the people who said they were willing to change their mode if other options were available. The study estimated that the number of households between Washington(east), Naval (west), 13th Street (north) and Burwell (south) was approximately ~1,700 households. The city will be updating their Comprehensive Plan soon and more details regarding growth in housing will be included in that plan.  Comment: Has there been discussion with the shipyard about their plans to optimize their infrastructure and what does that look like when moves internally are made – how does that impact the roadways outside the shipyard? o Answer: The City has been working closely with the shipyard on this project as well as efforts through their environmental permitting for their upcoming changes. The City will be commenting on their environmental work and they are working with us on this study; contact Allison Setter allison.satter@navy.mil Comments received via City website after the meeting  Question if the project included any curb painting  Question if “create commercial parking zones” means proposing parking meters; also a comment that downtown Bremerton needs more housing and basic retail services. With these, more people could live downtown or nearby and not need to drive.  Comment that suggested implementation of non-motorized facilities include a wide shared use path across the Warren Avenue Bridge and include a shared us path under Warren Ave via tunnel at Olympic College as part of the future bridge improvements. Almira Drive improvements should include a safe crossing of Sylvan at Almira Drive. 6th Street road diet should include bike boxes. Naval Ave bike-ped improvements should include bike boxes. Share use path from Jackson Park neighborhood to Sylvan Way should include lighting and other safety features. Bike parking should be expanded in downtown Bremerton. A shared use path from Bremerton to Gorst is essential to biking in Kitsap Conty and finally, safe bike and pedestrian facilities to the Naval Shipyard from all future park-and-rides.  Commentor supported the draft plan as presented. Encouraged Council to go “all-in” on 6 th Street.  Commentor is supportive of the plan. Noted the left-turn signal onto 11 th from Naval is short. 5 Last updated: November 7, 2022  Commentor was supportive of the bike improvements. Would like to see protected bike lanes. Does not support replacement of traffic signals with traffic circles. Feels they are difficult to navigate for pedestrians. Attachment E. Public Information Survey To the right you see Templafy taskbar with access to your content Are you offline? Click New Slide in ribbon and select a layout With Templafy you get access to presentations, slides and picturesJoint Compatibility Transportation Plan 1 Survey Report May 2021 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Study overview 5 Methodology 6 Key findings and recommendations 9 How to read this report 10 Detailed Findings 10 Pre-COVID travel behavior 17 During-COVID travel behavior 19 Post-COVID roadway improvements 29 Appendices 30 Appendix A: Survey instrument 40 Appendix B: Recruitment materials 42 Appendix C: Demographic profile Introduction 3 4 Study OverviewPurpose and Approach Purpose •The City of Bremerton is experiencing significant change as more people discover all this vibrant maritime community has to offer. The City and Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton are developing the Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan to define solutions to improve mobility, outline parking strategies, and help create a vibrant community that invites people to live, work, and play. •The City of Bremerton hired a Parametrix led consultant team including PRR. PRR is an independent research firm, to conduct a public opinion survey to learn more about where and people are traveling within the City. •This report summarizes key survey findings. The City will use the survey results to inform potential solutions to improve safety and mobility throughout the study area. Approach •The survey was conducted from February 3 to 28, 2021. A total 557 people completed the survey, with +/-4% margin of error. •Survey topics included trip origins and destinations, trip frequency, trip purposes, mode choice, impact of COVID- 19 on travel behavior, issues that would influence travel mode after COVID-19, ideas on ways to improve travel in Bremerton, and standard respondent demographics. •The City promoted the survey to Bremerton residents through the following channels (See Appendix B for recruitment materials examples): •The City’s Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan website •Billboard announcement •City of Bremerton Social media •Email •Partnership with NBK-BR and NBK-SR (electronic updates and flyers) •Open house •The survey link was also shared to several community- based Facebook groups including: NBK-BR, Secret Bremerton, Manette Group, Downtown Business Association, Union Hill Neighborhood, •Survey respondents represented a range of genders, ages, incomes, races, ethnicities, and locations in the Bremerton area. See Appendix C (p. 40-41) for a demographic profile of survey respondents. 5 •Correlation analysis was used to see if there were associations between demographic characteristics of respondents (age, gender, income, etc.), their travel behavior (i.e., mode choice, travel frequency, change in work commute since the statewide stay-at-home order ), and their perceptions on post-COVID travel improvements (e.g., most important projects to improve travel in Bremerton). •To achieve the cut-off for statistical significance, estimates must have a 0.05 significance level (a 95 percent confidence level) and a correlation coefficient above 0.15 or below -0.15. This indicates a relatively strong relationship between two variables. •Only statistically significant relationships are discussed throughout the report. When something is statistically significant, it means it is highly unlikely to be the result of random chance. This report summarizes survey results using charts. The totals in some charts may add up to somewhat more or less than 100% due to rounding or where respondents could select multiple responses. In addition, the total number of respondents varies from chart to chart based on how many people answered the question. MethodsIn-depth analysis After the March 2020 stay-at-home order 6 Before the March 2020 stay-at-home order •Most respondents (85%) traveled for work, but many also traveled for non-commute trips, such as food or drink (50%), errands (46%), and social or recreational activities (41%). •Most respondents (88%) traveled to or in Bremerton; typically during peak hours (87% between 5 and 9 am; 90% between 2 and 7 pm). •Respondents began their work commute trips in places around the Kitsap Peninsula (top origins: districts 19 at 11% and 26 at 10% of respondents), whereas most (81%) had work- commute destinations in one place: district 16 (60% in district 16b). •A majority (64%) drove alone. Few used transit, such as bus (8%) or ferry (7-8%), or other alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles such as walking (5% from home to workplace, 11% as part of commute), carpooling (10%), worker/ driver bus program (10%), or biking (7%). •Almost half (47%) of respondents said their work commute changed since March 2020, and mostly (72%) because they now worked more from home. •Mode choices have changed too, shifting towards more driving alone (26%) or less public transit use (18%). Key FindingsTravel patterns Alternative options (top motivators or improvements) 7 Transit Use (top barriers and motivators) Barriers: •Riding the bus is inconvenient or takes too long (52%) •I like the convenience of having my car (47%) •I have to make stops on my way to/from work (36%) Motivators: •More frequent service (25%) •Extended operation time (20%) •Express service (18%) •Direct service (18%) Vanpool: •Free (17%) or reserved (17%) parking for vanpoolers •Free ride home for emergencies (17%) •Help establishing a vanpool (15%) Carpool: •Free (34%), reserved (33%), or reduced-fee (17%) parking for carpoolers •Free ride home for emergencies (20%) •Help establishing a carpool (19%) Biking: •Protected (36%), new (29%), or improved (22%) bike lanes Worker/driver bus program •Increased shift flexibility (33%) •Extended transit operation time (29%) Key FindingsEncouraging mode shift Encouraging people to use alternatives to driving alone comes down to convenience. Communications preferences 8 Top improvements Most important projects to improve travel in Bremerton: •Roadway capacity (53%) •Shipyard access (43%) •Roadway efficiency (29%) •Active travel (34%) •Many (37%) respondents wanted to receive updates about Bremerton’s transportation plan. •Top ways to send updates: •Email (71%) •Facebook (41%) •The project website (32%) Key FindingsRecommended improvements and communications 9 How to read this report Descriptive title, main takeaway Correlation results: indicates whether there’s a relationship between specific survey responses and respondent’s characteristics. For example, respondents who have selected “increased shift flexibility” tend to be younger and travel to/in Bremerton to work. Note: We are only calling out findings that are statistically significant. Base: people who saw the question Survey question Other:Summarizes the open-ended responses. Items & Results: Some questions have multiple parts; this one asks about things that would improve the Worker/Drive bus program. Detailed Findings: Pre-COVID Travel Behavior 10 11 Most respondents (85%) travelled to or in Bremerton 4-7 days per week before COVID restrictions, and most traveled for work. 2% 3% 6% 88% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Less than once per month 1-3 days per month 1-3 days per week 4-7 days per week how often did you usually travel to or in Bremerton? Base: all respondents (n = 555). 85% 50% 46% 41% 20% 14% 5% 6% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Travel to or from work Food or drink Errands Social/recreational Drop off/pick up someone Non-commute work-related travel Travel to or from school Other what was the purpose of your trips to or in Bremerton on weekdays? Please select all that apply. Base: all respondents (n = 555). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Before the stay-at-home order in March 2020… Other includes: to take the ferry, live in Bremerton, shopping, social visits. 12 A majority of respondents (64%) drove alone for weekday trips to or in Bremerton before the pandemic. 64% 11% 10% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 5% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0.3% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Drive alone Walk as part of my commute Carpool Worker/Driver Bus Ferry to/from Seattle Bus Bike or electric bike Ferry to/from Port Orchard Walk from home to workplace Motorcycle Work from home Ridehail Vanpool Other Please indicate the ways you typically commuted to work before COVID during weekdays? Please select all that apply. Base: all respondents (n = 471). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Other includes: multi-mode trip, someone drives me. Note: The chart above averages across all weekdays. There are no substantive differences across weekdays. Most respondents commuted to district 16. Two-thirds began their commute less than 10 miles from district 16. 13 Top work-commute origins: Base: all respondents (n = 444). All other districts selected by less than 5% of respondents. ▪District 19 (11%) ▪District 26 (10%) ▪Districts 15, 16a, 16b 21 (8%) ▪District 10 (7%) ▪District 20 (6%) Top work-commute destinations: Base: all respondents (n = 429). All other districts selected by less than 5% of respondents. ▪District 16b (60%) ▪District 16a (11%) ▪District 16c (10%) ▪District 25 East of Kitsap County (7%) 14 Travel mode for work commute trip to/from district 16 68% 10% 10% 12% 2% 6% 5% 8% 5% 3% 0.2% 1% 1% 42% 29% 13% 6% 26% 15% 23% 5% 18% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Drive alone Walk as part of my commute Carpool Worker/Driver Bus Ferry to/from Seattle Bus Bike or electric bike Ferry to/from Port Orchard Walk from home to workplace Motorcycle Work from home Ridehail Vanpool Travel mode: Respondents who travel to vs. from district 16 To District 16 (N =348)From District 16 (N =83) •Respondents who work at district 16 were more likely to drive or take worker -driver bus for their commute trips •Respondents who live in district 16 were more likely to walk, bike, and take ferry for their commute trips. 15 Work commute trip origins to district 16 The image to the right shows traffic flow from larger Freight Analysis Zones (FAZs, the red boundary) to district 16. Most (81%) of respondents reported they worked in district 16. For respondents who work in district 16: ▪39% travel from south of district 16 (districts 19-22, and 26). ▪21% travel from northeast of district 16 (districts 10, 11, 14, and 15). ▪13% travel from north of district 16 (districts 1- 7). ▪10% travel from South of Kitsap County. ▪8% travel from west of district 16 (districts 9, 13, 17, and 18). Traffic flow from larger FAZs to district 16. Base: Respondents who work in district 16 (n = 348). 16 Most of respondents (87%) traveled between home and work during peak commute hours. 87% 3% 6% 1% 3% 0%20%40%60%80%100% 5:00 am –9:00 am 9:00 am –2:00 pm 2:00 pm –7:00 pm 7:00 pm –midnight midnight –5:00 am Home to work (n = 459) 3% 2% 90% 4% 2% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Work to home (n = 438) Before COVID, thinking about the weekday work commute trips you made what time of day did you usually go from: Base: all respondents who travel to/in Bremerton for work . Detailed Findings: During-COVID Travel Behavior 17 18 Respondents reported working from home and driving alone more since the pandemic, and using transit less. 72% 26% 18% 12% 8% 7% 7% 4% 3% 1% 8% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Work from home more Drive alone more Use public transit less Walk more Walk less Drive alone less Bike more Bike less Use public transit more Work from home less Other How has your work commute changed? Base: all respondents who travel to or from work in Bremerton and whose work commute changed since March 2020 (n = 203). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages add may sum to more than 100%. 51%47%2% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Has your work commute changed since March 2020 and the statewide stay-at- home order? No Yes No longer working Base: all respondents who travel to or from work in Bremerton (n = 433). Correlations Respondents who have experienced a change in their work commute since COVID tend to: ▪Have higher incomes ▪Travel to/in Bremerton to run errands Other includes: Drive more due to limited public transit, changed work shift, changed work area. Detailed Findings: Post-COVID Travel Improvements 19 20 Convenience is a top reason respondents chose to drive alone. 52% 47% 36% 19% 14% 12% 10% 9% 8% 6% 5% 20% 2% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Riding the bus is inconvenient or takes too long I like the convenience of having my car I have to make stops on my way to/from work Bicycling isn’t safe Family care or similar obligations Walking isn’t safe My job requires me to use my car for work Concerns about catching COVID on public transit There isn’t any secure or covered bicycle parking My commute distance is too short I need more information on alternative modes Other Not applicable –I do not have a motor vehicle After COVID, what would be the three top reasons you would drive alone instead of using an alternative travel mode for your trips to or in Bremerton? Base: all respondents (n = 507). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Correlations: These respondents tend to travel to/in Bremerton for social/recreational purposes. Correlations: These respondents tend to travel to/in Bremerton to run errands, buy food/drink, or for social/recreational purposes. Correlations: These respondents are less likely to drop off or pick up someone to/in Bremerton. Other includes:bus isn’t available during work hours, changing/unreliable work hours, incompatible with work schedule; bad weather for waiting/walking outside, stops are not conveniently located near origin or destination. 21 More convenient service (faster trips, longer operating hours) would motivate respondents to use transit more often. 25% 20% 18% 18% 15% 14% 13% 10% 8% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6% 11% 29% 0%20%40%60%80%100% More frequent transit services Extended transit operation time Express service with fewer stops More direct service that does not require transfers Better information on transit routes, schedules, and real-time arrivals Provide more transit service locations More parking at park and ride lots or transit centers Improved comfort at transit stops Shorter wait times between transfers Lower the cost of transit fares Improved safety at transit stops Show travel time savings when riding bus over driving Buses arrive on time If parking costs increased Other I have no interest in using transit What are the top three features that would motivate you to use (or use more often) public transit for trips to or in Bremerton after COVID? Base: all respondents (n = 497). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Correlations: These respondents tend to experience no change in their work commute since COVID. Correlations: These respondents tend to travel to/in Bremerton to run errands Correlations: These respondents are less likely to travel to/in Bremerton to run errands Correlations: These respondents tend to have higher income. Correlations: These respondents tend to: ▪Travel to/in Bremerton for non-commute work-related trips, or to buy food/drink. ▪Experience a change in their work commute since COVID. Other includes: more features for bikes (bike racks on bus and street infrastructure for bike), inconvenient to manage ORCA card account, improve safety at park and rides. 22 Increased shift flexibility and extended operating hours would improve the worker/driver bus program 33% 29% 18% 17% 16% 6% 9% 49% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Increased shift flexibility Extended transit operation time Changes to minimum usage requirements Express service with fewer stops More parking at park and ride lots or transit centers Lower the cost of transit fares to make it more affordable than driving alone Other I am not interested in using the Worker/Driver bus program What are the top 3 things that would improve the Worker/Driver bus program for trips to the shipyard when things return to normal after COVID? Base: all respondents (n = 492). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Correlations: These respondents tend to: ▪Be younger ▪Travel to/in Bremerton to work Other includes: extend service area, restored full capacity, make enrollment easier, more information. 23 Free services (parking, ride home) and reserved parking near workplace would motivate respondents to use vanpool more often. 17% 17% 17% 15% 7% 6% 65% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Free parking for vanpoolers Free ride home in case of emergencies Reserved parking for vanpoolers near workplace Help establishing a vanpool at your workplace Lower parking rates for vanpoolers Other I have no interest in using vanpool What are the top 3 things that would motivate you to use a vanpool (or vanpool more often) for your trips to or in Bremerton when things return to normal after COVID? Base: all respondents (n = 487). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Correlations: These respondents tend to be women. Correlations: These respondents tend to be People of Color. Correlations: These respondents tend to be younger. Other includes: kids cannot use vanpool, provide vanpool in specific area near residence, greater flexibility to accommodate flexible schedules. 24 Free or reserved parking and reserved parking near workplace would motivate respondents to carpool more often. 34% 33% 20% 19% 17% 7% 45% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Free parking for carpoolers Reserved parking for carpoolers near workplace Free ride home in case of emergencies Help facilitating a carpool Lower parking rates for carpoolers Other I have no interest in carpooling What are the top 3 things that would motivate you to carpool (or carpool more often) for your trips to or in Bremerton when things return to normal after COVID? Base: all respondents (n = 484). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Correlations: These respondents tend to be women. Correlations: These respondents tend to be younger Other includes:increased bus service from carpool lots, greater flexibility in shift schedules, free parking in centralized location. 25 About one-third of respondents thought having “protected or separated bike lanes” would motivate them to bike. 36% 29% 22% 10% 6% 5% 4% 4% 8% 53% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Protected/separated bicycle lanes/trails New bike lanes Improved existing bike lanes Bike lockers at my workplace, ferry terminal, etc. Access to publicly available bikes through a bike share company Shower facilities at my workplace More buses with bike racks Provide better directional signals for bikes Other I have no interest in biking What are the top 3 things that would motivate you to bike (or bike more often) for your trips to or in Bremerton when things return to normal after COVID? Base: all respondents (n = 482). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Correlations: These respondents tend to travel to/in Bremerton ▪For food or drink ▪For social recreational purposes They are less likely to travel to/in Bremerton to work Other includes: allow bikes in shipyard, increase general street infrastructure for bikes, too far to bike to Bremerton. 26 Respondents said roadway and shipyard access improvements were among the most important projects to improve travel in Bremerton. 53% 43% 39% 34% 22% 17% 14% 13% 22% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Roadway capacity projects Shipyard access improvements Roadway efficiency projects Active travel improvements More parking available at park and ride lots Public transit projects Public information and incentive programs Commute technology programs Other In your opinion, what are the three most important projects to improve travel in Bremerton?Base: all respondents (n = 480). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%. Correlations: These respondents tend to travel to/in Bremerton to work; They are less likely to travel to/in Bremerton: •To run errands •For food or drink •For social or recreational purpose Correlations: These respondents tend to travel to/in Bremerton for all other purposes (Food/drink, errands, drop off/pick up someone, non- commute work-related travel, social/recreational trip) than work; They are less likely to travel to/in Bremerton to work. Correlations: These respondents tend to be younger Other includes: more park and rides, more parking in general, more affordable parking, build a bridge or foot ferry to ease commute between Port Orchard and Bremerton, increased safety and street infrastructure for walking and biking. 27 Respondents suggested investments in parking, traffic flow, and non-drive alone travel modes would improve travel in Bremerton. Parking ▪Increase the number of multi-level parking structures (not single-level lots) ▪Increase parking for shipyard employees specifically ▪Lower/remove fees for employees ▪Provide safe parking options ▪De-monopolize Diamond parking Traffic flow ▪Widen or add road through Gorst ▪Build bridge to Port Orchard ▪Reduce number of traffic lights and/or better time lights ▪Improve traffic flow outside shipyard Non-drive alone travel modes ▪Build more infrastructure for walking and biking ▪More protected bike lanes and storage ▪Safety for pedestrians (streetlights, intersection crossings, improve/add sidewalks, Infrastructure to support slower speeds in residential areas) ▪Improve pedestrian infrastructure to Shipyard ▪More reliable bus system ▪Tracking system (like Onebusaway) ▪Expanded area for bus service (both origin and destination) ▪Address confusing and changing bus routes ▪Incentive system for using alternative transportation modes (ex: by-passing traffic lights, bus only lanes) ▪Improve ferry system (increase capacity, more reliable schedule, increase area service) Shipyard Policies ▪Encourage employees to telecommute ▪Stagger employee shifts to reduce traffic congestion ▪Expand service area of shuttle buses (Gorst, Port Orchard, etc.) ▪Allow bikes in shipyard The original question read “Did we miss anything? are there any other ideas you have for improving travel in Bremerton when things return to normal after covid?” 28 About 40% of respondents wanted to received updates about Bremerton’s Transportation Plan (71% via email, 41% via Facebook). 71% 41% 32% 17% 13% 10% 10% 9% 5% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Email updates Facebook Project website Online newspaper Public events/presentations Mail updates Twitter Print newspaper Other As plans continue to develop, what are the top 3 best ways to keep you updated? Base: all respondents who want to receive updates about Bremerton's Transportation Plan (n = 175). Multiple responses allowed. Percentages sum to more than 100%.63%37% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Do you want to receive updates about Bremerton’s Transportation Plan? No Yes Base: all respondents (n = 476). Other includes: shipyard communications, civic alerts. Appendices 29 30 Appendix A: Survey instrument 31 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 32 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 33 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 34 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 35 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 36 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 37 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 38 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 39 Appendix A: Survey instrument, continued 40 Appendix B: Recruitment materials –Social media post 41 Appendix B: Recruitment materials –Website 42 Appendix C: Demographic Profile –Part 1 Due to rounding, or options where participants could select multiple answers, percentages may not sum to 100%. Rounding occurs on all demographic slides. 53% 39% 0.4% 8% Male Female Not listed here Prefer not to answer Gender (n = 455) 2% 9% 19% 21% 27% 11% 4% 7% Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,99 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Don't know Income (n = 436) 85% 7% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3% White Asian or Asian-American Hispanic or Latino/a/x American Indian or Alaska Native Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American Not listed here Race (n = 431) 4% 37% 30% 11% 11% 5% 1% 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 or older Age (n = 477) 43 Appendix C: Demographic Profile –Part 2 94% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.2% 2% English Spanish Tagalog German Chinese French Korean Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages Other Language (n = 467) Due to rounding, or options where participants could select multiple answers, percentages may not sum to 100%. Rounding occurs on all demographic slides. City Percentage Bremerton 50% Port Orchard 21% Silverdale 5% Poulsbo 4% Gig Harbor 3% Belfair 2% Olalla 2% Residency (n = 446) Residency distribution (N=449) Note: Areas with 1% or fewer respondents not shown. Appendix D Methods and Assumptions Memo 719 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 200 | SEATTLE, WA 98104 | P 206.394.3700 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 4, 2021 TO: Katie Ketterer FROM: Michael Horntvedt SUBJECT: Methods and Assumptions CC: Alex Atchison, PE, PTOE Emily Welter, PE PROJECT NUMBER: 554-1896-176 PROJECT NAME: Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION The Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan is intended to outline regional transportation network improvements necessary to improve or maintain accessibility, mobility, quality of life, and economic vitality for the City of Bremerton and Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton (NBK-BR). Success of this plan will ensure NBK-BR meets its missions for national defense while supporting Bremerton’s long-range growth needs. The plan will document the specific purpose and need for improvements, develop and screen a range of reasonable alternatives, and identify preferred alternatives for transportation improvements and parking solutions in the study area. It will build on background planning, studies, parking inventories, and other ongoing efforts including those prepared by the City, Kitsap Transit, NBK-BR, Kitsap County, and other regional agencies, as well as supplemental data collected by the project team. The final Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan will identify short, mid, and long-term capital and operational improvements prioritized based on metrics determined during the study that are clear, useful, and actionable. Improvements may be located within the study area or outside of it, for example, a park-and-ride facility that would be served by transit service to NBK-BR could be sited in a location outside of the study area. The plan will develop conceptual planning level cost estimates for select preferred alternatives for ROW, design, and construction. This memorandum describes the proposed methods and assumptions that will be used to complete the technical analysis for this study. Study Area The study area for this project is the area within the City limits as well as City of Bremerton Urban Growth Area. The study area is shown in Figure 1 below. Areas outside the city, such as Port Orchard, will be included in some analysis as well. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 2 October 4, 2021 Figure 1. Study Area DATA COLLECTION Intersection Turning Movement Counts 58 intersections were identified as significant intersections in the study area. Most of the study intersections are signalized intersections, but unsignalized intersections along major corridors or provide access to and from NBK- BR will also be included in the analysis. AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts (TMCs) collected in March 2017, January 2018, and May 2019 were provided by the City and WSDOT. PM peak hour volumes were also provided in the City’s 2019 Synchro model; these will be used for the Existing Conditions traffic analysis. Table 1 below notes intersections where recent AM and PM peak hour TMCs are available and intersections where counts are needed. TMCs will be collected in 15-minute increments and include heavy vehicle percentage and pedestrian and bicycle volumes. AM peak hour TMCs will be collected between 6-8 am during the week of January 25, 2021. Table 1. Study Intersections # Intersection Intersection Control AM Peak Hour Data Date 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way/Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 3 SR 3 NB Off-Ramp/SR 3 NB On-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 4 Shorewood Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 5 Ostrich Bay Ave/Private Dwy at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 3 October 4, 2021 # Intersection Intersection Control AM Peak Hour Data Date 6 Oyster Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 7 National Ave/Private Dwy at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 10 11th St at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 11 Wycoff Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 12 N Callow Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)/6th St (SR 310) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 13 N Montgomery Ave at 6th St (SR 310)/6th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 14 Naval Ave at 6th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 16 Veneta Ave at 6th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 17 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 6th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 18 Park Ave at 6th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 19 Pacific Ave at 6th Street Unsignalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 20 Washington Ave at 6th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 21 Warren Ave/Warren Ave (SR 303) at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 23 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 13th St Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 24 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 16th St Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 25 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sheridan Rd Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 26 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sylvan Way Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 27 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Private Dwy/Hollis St Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 28 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Riddell Rd Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 29 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Furneys Ln/Fred Meyer Dwy Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 30 N Callow Ave at 11th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 31 Naval Ave at 11th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 32 High Ave at 11th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 33 Park Ave at 11th St Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 35 N Callow Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 36 N Montgomery Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 37 Naval Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 38 State Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 40 Park Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 41 Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 42 Pacific Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 43 Washington Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Signalized Tues Jan 9, 2018 44 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at S Cambrian Ave/Farragut Ave Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 45 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at Charleston Beach Rd Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 46 Union Ave/Auto Center Blvd at Werner Rd Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 47 Oyster Bay Ave/Auto Center Way at Werner Rd/Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized Wed Jan 10, 2018 93 Austin Dr at SR 3 NB On Ramp/SR 3 NB Off Ramp Unsignalized Tues Jan 26, 2021 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 4 October 4, 2021 # Intersection Intersection Control AM Peak Hour Data Date 94 Austin Dr at SR 3 SB Off Ramp/SR 3 SB On Ramp Unsignalized Tues Jan 26, 2021 104 SR 3 SB On Ramp/SR 3 SB Off Ramp at Loxie Eagans Blvd Unsignalized Tues Mar 14, 2017 105 SR 3 NB Off Ramp/SR 3 NB On Ramp at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized Tues Mar 14, 2017 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304) Ped Signal Tues Jan 26, 2021 202 SR 16 Spur/Sam Christopherson Dr at SR 3 Signalized Wed Mar 8, 2017 216 SR 3 at Imperial Way Signalized Wed Mar 8, 2017 307 Naval St at 15th St Signalized Tues Jan 26, 2021 316 Park at 5th St Unsignalized Tues Jan 26, 2021 317 Park at 4th St Unsignalized Tues Jan 26, 2021 318 Pacific Avenue at 5th St Unsignalized Tues Jan 26, 2021 319 Pacific Avenue at 4th St Unsignalized Tues Jan 26, 2021 400 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 5th Unsignalized Tues, May 7, 2019 401 Warrant Ave (SR 303) at 4th Unsignalized Tues, May 7, 2019 Average Daily Traffic Average daily traffic (ADT) at seven screenlines will be used to validate the travel demand model. The screenlines have been reviewed and approved by City staff. The locations of the screenlines are shown in Figure 2 below. Specific locations along each screenline are shown in Table 2 below. ADT volumes for some of these screenlines were collected from the WSDOT Traffic GeoPortal, City intersection counts, data provided by Washington State Ferries (WSF), and data provided by Kitsap Transit. Additional ADT volumes were collected by the City and by the Consultant (IDAX) for 72 hours during the week of January 25, 2021. Figure 2. Screenline Locations TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 5 October 4, 2021 Table 2. Screenline Locations # Screenline Description Location along Screenline Data Source 1 SR 3, north of Austin SR 3, MP 39.75 2019 WSDOT ADT Kitsap Way, between Lyle Ave and Wilmont St 2021 Tube Count 2 Port Washington Narrows Warren Ave (SR 303) 2019 WSDOT ADT Manette Bridge 2021 Tube Count 3 north-south, west of Warren Ave (SR 303) Burwell St (SR 304) 2019 WSDOT ADT 6th St 2018 Intersection Count 11th St 2021 Tube Count 4 north-south, east of Warren Ave Burwell St (SR 304) 2019 WSDOT ADT 6th St 2018 Intersection Count 11th Street 2021 Tube Count 5 SR 3, south of Werner Rd SR 3, south of Werner Rd 2018 Intersection Count Charleston Blvd, south of Farragut St 2017 Intersection Count 6 north-south, east of ferry terminal Seattle-Bremerton Ferry (SR 304) WSF Port Orchard-Bremerton Foot Ferry Kitsap Transit Bremerton-Annapolis Foot Ferry Kitsap Transit 7 east-west, north of NE Riddell Rd Pine Rd 2021 Tube Count Wheaton Way (SR 303) 2019 Tube Count Ilahee Rd, south of Oceanview Blvd NE 2021 Tube Count Parking Data While this study will not be collecting parking data in the field, it will look at trends or indicators that relate to parking demand. The following data will be reviewed and analyzed with a focus on data from the completion of the parking study through pre-COVID conditions:  Traffic counts in study area (2016-2020)  Parking citation data (2016-2020)  Ferry ridership (2016-2020)  NBK-BR (including Puget Sound Naval Shipyard – PSNS) employment (2016-2020)  Transit ridership data from Kitsap Transit (2016-2021)  Park and Ride parking data (2016-2020) Origin-Destination A public information survey is being conducted to collect information on trip origins and destinations. The survey asks participants to identify the district where they start and end their commute trip to or from Bremerton, based on Figure 3 below. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 6 October 4, 2021 In addition to the public survey, data collected during 2017-2018 for the WSDOT Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) project will be used. The data is aggregated by transportation analysis zones (TAZ) and shows mode choice to major employment sites, including NBK-BR, during the morning commute. Figure 3. Origin and Destination Map included in Public Survey TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING The City of Bremerton provided its travel demand forecasting model for use on this project. The model runs in the Visum software version 18.02-12. The City’s model is a three-step model (trip generation, trip distribution, and vehicle assignment) and estimates PM peak hour vehicle trips. The boundaries of the model area are generally consistent with the City’s boundaries. There are 125 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the model area and eight external gateways. The land use inputs include households (single-family and multi-family) and employment (retail, office, government, education, warehousing, manufacturing, and construction). There are separate input categories for military bases and park and rides within the model area. A 2019 Existing Conditions and 2040 Future Baseline were provided. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 7 October 4, 2021 Validation The base year model will be validated using PM peak hour vehicle counts at 7 screenlines. These are imaginary boundaries drawn across the street network to determine whether the model’s depiction of volumes moving across the City are consistent with the observed volumes. The locations of the screenlines are shown in Figure 2 above. The validation target is that the two-way model volume estimates are within 10% of observed counts. In order to improve the model’s performance, the following adjustments may be necessary:  Updating the quantity and location of household and population estimates within the model area by zone.  Adjusting PM peak hour vehicle trip generation rates by comparing with ITE trip generation rates, local traffic studies, or vehicle driveway counts.  Modifying the assumptions around Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton related to PM peak hour vehicle trip generation, gate distribution, and mode of access.  Calibrating the roadway network parameters (speeds, capacities, and functional class) to better reflect the routes that people use throughout the model area.  Adjusting the number of the trips that enter or exit the model area based on observed vehicle counts. If the project team is unable to meet the validation criteria, the deficiencies in the model will be discussed and post-processing procedures will be developed to correct for the model’s errors. This will allow the model to still be used to develop growth rates for the future year scenarios. As discussed in the Data Collection section above, the count data along the screenlines was collected from several different sources: WSDOT daily traffic volumes, intersection counts from previous traffic studies, and 24-hour tube counts collected in January 2021. The PM peak hour volume for locations where only daily volumes were available will be estimated using peak hour percentages from the recently collected tube counts. Based on the observed count data, the PM peak hour occurs between 3:30 and 4:30 PM. The count data from this time period at each location will be used to validate the model. An adjustment factor will be applied to the 2021 count data to reflect pre-COVID conditions. The volumes will be adjusted to 2019 pre-COVID conditions using a factor that will be calculated using data from nearby WSDOT permanent traffic recorders (PTR) and other available data from the City. Forecasting The primary purpose of the City’s model will be to estimate growth percentages for vehicle trips between the base year and future year that can be applied to the existing intersection counts to estimate future intersection volumes. Since an AM peak hour model is not available, the growth percentages that are developed for the PM peak hour will also be used for the morning peak. Growth percentages will be developed by subarea. The model will not be used to directly forecast changes in demand for other modes (transit, walking, and biking). Before running the future year model, the land use estimates and other model inputs will be updated to reflect 2050 conditions. The future year is being extended to be consistent with Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) regional planning document “Vision 2050” and to provide a modeling basis for the City for future planning efforts. The project team will determine 2050 citywide land use control totals by coordinating with PSRC and will work with the City to redistribute the growth at the TAZ level. The project team will update other model inputs as necessary to reflect 2050 conditions. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 8 October 4, 2021 Future Build Alternatives The three Build Alternatives are based on maintaining or changing where NBK-BR employees park. The following methodology will be used to develop volume forecasts for each of the three Build Alternatives. The three Build Alternatives include:  Support Parking: adds downtown parking to meet parking demand  Relocate Parking: relocates a portion of NBK-BR employees outside of downtown  Add Base Parking: adds parking on NBK-BR to meet parking demand for NBK-BR Estimating NBK-BR Employee Travel Patterns First, the parking diversion for the Relocate Parking and Add Base Parking alternatives will be determined based on the number of NBK-BR employees and their current travel patterns. The total number of NBK-BR employees and the percent of the daily total that arrives or departs during the traffic peak hour will be estimated consistent with the travel demand modeling. The current mode split for drive alone, carpool, transit, and biking or walking will be estimated based on the public information survey as well as the WSDOT CTR surveys. The vehicle and pedestrian volumes at the NBK-BR gates that were developed during the travel demand model validation will be used to determine the number of NBK-BR employees parking downtown and then walking into NBK-BR. The total number of people walking into NBK-BR after parking downtown will then be converted to a total number of vehicles using the AVO estimated from the WSDOT CTR surveys. Volume Redistribution For the Relocate Parking alternative, it is assumed that a portion of NBK-BR employee vehicles will no longer park downtown and instead will park at a Kitsap Transit park and ride and travel to NBK-BR on a fixed-route or worker/driver bus. To develop traffic volumes for this alternative, the downtown area will be divided into six parking sections (section A through F). The total number of occupied parking stalls in each section will be estimated based on inventory and occupancy data from the 2017 Parking Study and an estimated number of stalls per residential block for those areas outside of the 2017 Parking Study limits. Next, the number of NBK-BR employee vehicles parking in each section will then be estimated based on pedestrian volumes at the NBK-BR gates. The NBK-BR employee vehicles will be removed from each section and then removed from the study roadway network based on existing turning movement counts and the major routes. The portion of total traffic getting diverted along the three major routes in and out of the City is as follows:  45% along Charleston Blvd to the south  30% along SR 303 to the north  25% along Kitsap Way to the northwest For the Add Base Parking alternative, it is assumed that a portion of NBK-BR employee vehicles will no longer park downtown and instead will park at NBK-BR. The NBK-BR employee vehicles will be diverted based on the same parking sections as the Relocate Parking alternative, but instead of removing the vehicles from the study roadway network, all vehicles will be diverted to enter NBK-BR through three gates: Charleston, Montgomery, and Naval. Traffic patterns for the Support Base Parking alternative were assumed to be the same as the No Build condition. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 9 October 4, 2021 Lastly, there a few proposed improvements that will require additional assumptions about traffic volume diversion. These include:  Road diets along 6th Street and 11th Street: The improvement proposes to rechannelize 6th Street and 11th Street from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction with a two-way-left-turn lane. The analysis assumes 200 vehicles per hour (vph) will divert from 6th Street to Burwell Street with 75% in the peak direction and 25% in the off-peak direction. 150 vph were assumed to divert from 11th Street to 13th Street and 150 vph were assumed to divert from 11th Street to Burwell Street, with 55% in the peak direction and 45% in the off-peak direction. This is consistent with the 6th Street and 11th Street Corridor Feasibility Study and existing traffic volumes.  Build projects in SR 303 Corridor Study: The SR 303 Corridor Study proposes several improvements that will cause traffic diversions compared to the No Build condition. Volume diversion for converting the northbound approach at Burwell Street/SR 303 to a right-in-right-out (RIRO) and for installing medians and requiring u-turns north of the Warren Avenue Bridge will be consistent with assumptions from the SR 303 Corridor Study.  Open Montgomery Gate in both directions: The Montgomery Gate is currently open to traffic inbound to NBK-BR during the AM peak hour and outbound traffic from NBK-BR during the PM peak hour. For this analysis, one of the proposed improvements is to open the Montgomery gate in both directions during both AM and PM peak hours. The analysis assumed that 85 vph would divert from the Charleston gate and 65 vph the Naval gate to the Montgomery gate. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Traffic operations analysis for this project will include weekday AM and PM peak hours for the following years:  Existing Conditions – 2020 (pre-Covid conditions)  Future Baseline – 2050 Analysis of No Build and Build alternatives will be performed for the year 2050. Intersections will be analyzed based on WSDOT’s analysis policies and protocols as of the date of this report using the following software packages:  Synchro 10 software will be used to analyze the operation of signalized and stop-controlled intersections.  SIDRA 8 software will be used to analyze roundabout-controlled intersections. Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes As discussed in the Data Collection section above, intersection volumes for most of the study intersections were collected by the City in January 2018 during the AM and PM peak hours. The City also provided a Synchro model that was developed in 2019 using 2018 traffic volumes. This model will be the base for existing PM conditions analysis. The intersections volumes included in this model were assumed to have been adjusted from the January 2018 counts for seasonality and annual growth and balanced between intersections. Given the change in traffic patterns during the 2020-2021 COVID pandemic, these 2019 PM peak hour model volumes will be used as is for this study and will not be adjusted for annual growth for the year 2020. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 10 October 4, 2021 Two intersections were not included in the 2019 PM peak hour Synchro model: Warren Ave (SR 303) at 4th Street and Warren Ave (SR 303) at 5th Ave. These intersections were studied during the SR 303 Corridor Study and intersections volumes were collected for these intersections in May 2019. These volumes will be used as is for this study as well. AM peak hour traffic volumes will be developed using existing traffic volumes and new count data. Traffic volumes will be baselined using the following approach and balanced to the highest input volume for the network.  January 2018: These volumes will be grown to 2019 conditions using an annual background growth of +2%.  March 2017: These volumes will be grown to 2019 conditions using an annual background growth of +2%.  May 2019: No adjustments needed.  January 2021: Since these volumes are being collected during the COVID pandemic, these volumes will need to be adjusted to pre-COVID conditions. The volumes will be adjusted to 2019 pre-COVID conditions using a factor that will be calculated using data from nearby WSDOT permanent traffic recorders (PTR) and other available data from the City. Traffic Models For the PM peak hour, the Synchro model provided by the City will be used for geometric configurations and signal timing. The intersections in the citywide model that will not be analyzed for this project will be removed from the model and two intersections will be added: Warren Ave (SR 303) at 4th Street and 5th Street. The team will perform a high-level check of the channelization and signal timing to confirm the model is up-to-date and make adjustments as needed. For the AM peak hour, the 2019 PM peak hour model will be used as a baseline for geometric configurations. The signal timing will be changed using the signal timing cards provided by the City, WSDOT and Kitsap County. If signal timing cards for any intersections are not provided, the cycle lengths, offsets, and splits will be optimized for those intersections. Future Baseline For the 2050 Future Baseline analysis, the Synchro model will be updated to include the planned roadway improvement projects shown in Table 3 below. These roadway projects are included in the City of Bremerton 2021-2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Kitsap County Six-Year TIP Resolution 2021-2026. Table 3. Planned Roadway Improvements Source Project Description City TIP Washington Avenue Roundabouts New roundabout at Washington Ave/Manette Bridge City TIP Naval Avenue Road Diet Road diet on Naval from the Navy Gate to 15th. Evaluating converting 8th and 10th Streets to one-way streets. City TIP Burwell Street Adaptive Signals Installs adaptive signals at all signalized intersections on SR 304 between Charleston Beach Road and Pacific Ave and Burwell Street at Washington Ave City TIP 11th Street / Callow Ave Intersection Improvements Constructs EB-NB left turn pocket. City TIP HSIP III Kitsap Way Bike Lanes and Warren Ave Traffic Signal Safety Bike lanes along Kitsap Way and channelization improvements at SR 303/6th Street and SR 303/Sheridan Road TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 11 October 4, 2021 Several improvement projects in the study area have been proposed in the SR 167 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study, WSDOT (2018). None of these projects are currently funded. The modeling study area and modeling process for this project assumes that the demand along SR 3 reaches the intersection, regardless of any changes to SR 3, therefore there wouldn’t be any changes in the results from the Synchro model. Specific capacity related projects at intersections will be considered as part of this study’s proposed improvements. The cycle lengths, offsets, and splits will be not be optimized for the No Build Synchro models, except at the following locations where the City has current projects planned:  SR 303 (Burwell Street to NE Furneys Road), consistent with HSIP project  11th Street (High Street to Callow Avenue) for the HSIP project  Naval Avenue (Burwell Street to 15th Street) for the Naval Ave Road Diet project  Washington/6th Street for the Washington Avenue roundabouts projects  Burwell Street (Callow Avenue to SR 303) for the Burwell Street Adaptive Signals project Future Build Alternatives The cycle lengths, offsets, and splits will be optimized for the Build Alternative Synchro models. Roundabouts are proposed at several intersections under the Build Alternatives. All roundabouts not included in the SR 303 Corridor Study will be modeled with a 60-foot island diameter to minimize right-of-way impacts. SAFETY ANALYSIS Citywide crash data collected and used in the recent Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan will be used to highlight crash locations and identify locations that require additional attention. The study team will use the Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan (2020) to recommend where potential alternatives might provide benefits for improved safety for all modes of travel. Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan included analysis of crash data for the years 2014 to 2018. The study team will also evaluate 2019 crash data, to be provided by WSDOT. Safety hot spots will be outlined using the safety data from the Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan and locations that warrant further consideration for improvements will be identified. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS The project team will analyze existing conditions, challenges, and opportunities for people walking and biking in the study area. The project team will summarize existing plans and policies (e.g., Bremerton Non-Motorized Plan (2007) and the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2016), results for the survey, origin- destination data, existing facilities (e.g. sidewalks and bike lanes), and sidewalk condition, gaps in connectivity, and safety trends. To support this analysis, walksheds and a bikeshed will be mapped to help identify opportunities, challenges, and areas where improvements would be most beneficial. The walkshed and bikeshed maps will be developed separately from topographic maps but solutions will be developed considering topography. Specifically, one bikeshed map will be developed that shows 5-minute, 15-minute, and 30-minute sheds from one point of origin (the Naval Avenue NBK-BR entrance), as the sheds would only change slightly if additional points of origin were analyzed. Multiple walkshed maps will be developed that show 5-minute, 15-minute (roughly a half-mile walk), and 30-minute (roughly a mile walk) sheds from up to 10 points of origin to be confirmed with City staff, including:  Gateway park and ride (P&R) TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 12 October 4, 2021  Naval Avenue NBK-BR entrance  Farragut NBK-BR entrance  Upper State NBK-BR entrance  Bremerton NBK-BR entrance  a new transit facility in West Bremerton  up to 4 additional points of origin One topography map will be developed showing roadway segments in the study area with slopes steeper than 5 percent and slopes steeper than 10 percent. The 5 percent threshold correlates with areas where curb ramps are required by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and the WSDOT Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook identifies this threshold as impacting mobility for most pedestrians.1 10 percent is the maximum preferred slope for bicycle facilities according to the Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic (CROW, NL), and it also applies for pedestrians because the WSDOT Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook notes that slopes greater than 12.5 percent are not usable by most pedestrians.2 This map will be used alongside the other existing conditions data when identifying potential projects, as it will help identify constraints. One bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) map will be developed using Open Street Map data to measure cyclist comfort on every street in the study area. The project team will analyze existing and baseline multimodal level of service as defined by Bremerton’s current Comprehensive Plan, taking into consideration a layered network facility and pedestrian/bike priority area level of service definitions. Modal performance issues for existing and future baseline conditions will be identified to support development of future alternatives to be evaluated in the study. As noted in the travel demand forecasting section, future bicycle and pedestrian demand will not be estimated using the travel demand model, but the project team will qualitatively describe how land use factors such as population, employment, and parking are changing in Bremerton and how this is anticipated to affect bicycle and pedestrian demand. The project team will review the Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan and the public information survey comments to summarize existing safety hot spots and locations with safety challenges. The study team will also review data provided by the City centering around customer complaints centered around bike/ped safety and mobility. This will be used to recommend potential projects to improve safety for all modes of travel. PARKING ANALYSIS Due to the convergence of Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton (NBK-BR), Downtown Bremerton, and the Ferry Terminal, there is a high demand for access and parking in the core of Bremerton. The high demand for access has created challenges such as traffic and parking congestion, including spillover impacts in residential neighborhoods and the downtown business district that ultimately impact the quality of life in Bremerton. There have been long- standing community concerns around parking in Bremerton both in downtown and residential neighborhoods due in part to the high demand for commuter parking. 1 https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M0000/PedFacGB.pdf 2 https://cyclehighways.eu/design-and-build/design-principles/slopes-and-gradients.html TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 13 October 4, 2021 The City of Bremerton completed an extensive study of parking conditions in downtown and adjacent neighborhoods in 2017 that was the first major effort to collect data and study parking conditions (see Figure 4). This JCTP study will rely extensively on the data, findings, public input, and strategies from the 2017 Parking Study. Detailed data was collected on- and off-street in the study area to understand parking demand and behavior such as vehicles being moved to avoid time limits. The data results demonstrated significant parking and mobility challenges and verified many of the long-standing community concerns around parking. Parking challenges include non-residents parking in residential neighborhoods without permits and in violation of time limits, the moving of vehicles in downtown to avoid time limits, significant land area in downtown and adjacent neighborhoods is dedicated to surface and structured parking, and heavy traffic congestion at rush hour. Improved parking management has the potential to enhance access to downtown and major employers while reducing impacts to residents and businesses. As part of the public outreach process, this study will explore new and existing parking strategies, seek additional input, and refine the strategies for the final JCTP. Figure 4. 2017 Parking Study Area source: City of Bremerton, 2017 Assumptions While COVID has impacted demand for parking in the near term, it is expected that the pre-COVID 2020 conditions were similar to those observed during data collection in 2016-17 for the Parking Study. The 2017 Parking Study involved extensive data collection both in downtown and adjacent residential neighborhoods over multiple days. The data was mapped and analyzed showing results for each collection hour with key findings for each of the study areas. The data results indicated that both downtown and adjacent residential neighborhoods were being negatively impacted by parking. The following summarize the key data findings for each study area: Downtown Study Area  Confirmation of significant vehicle movements known as the “Bremerton Shuffle.” TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 14 October 4, 2021  The average on-street block occupancy is 68%, but many on-street blocks have occupancy at 85% and above.  Off-street parking has high occupancies in commuter parking areas.  Park and ride facilities have available parking. Residential Neighborhoods  Parking utilization was high on many streets in residential neighborhoods (average of 83%.  Peak occupancy occurred at 10 AM and is not typical of a residential neighborhood.  Parking duration is over six hours on many residential streets, despite time limits for non-permit holders.  Many observed vehicles are registered to addresses outside the City of Bremerton. Methods The following methods will be used to analyze parking conditions, hear from stakeholders about parking challenges and solutions, and develop updated parking management recommendations and an implementation plan. Data Trends This analysis will be used to establish baseline conditions for the JCTP study as it relates to parking conditions. Data identified in the assumptions section will be analyzed to understand how conditions both pre- and post- COVID may have changed since the 2017 Parking Study to understand how it may have impacted parking demand and utilization over the last five years. Public Engagement Public input during the 2017 Parking Study demonstrated a strong understanding of the parking challenges by the community and particularly those most impacted. The JCTP study will be another opportunity to hear from the community about parking challenges and opportunities to improve parking management and access without negatively impacting the quality of life. During the 2017 Parking Study a new vision for the parking system was developed with input from the community (see Figure 5). The JCTP study will confirm the community’s vision and seek input on how parking conditions may or may not have changed since 2017. Figure 5. Community’s Vision for the Parking System source: City of Bremerton, 2017 The community also informed a set of guiding principles for decision-making around parking issues and solutions during the 2017 Parking Study (see Figure 6). TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 15 October 4, 2021 Figure 6. Parking System Guiding Principles source: City of Bremerton, 2017 Parking Strategies and Implementation The 2017 Parking Study included several recommended strategies for improving parking management and access to the downtown area (see Figure 7). A review and summary of the recommendations from the 2017 Parking Study will be completed early in the project to inform discussions with stakeholders about potential solutions. The Strategies Report from the 2017 Parking Study identifies potential revenue and expenditures for implementation which will be reviewed and updated as part of the JCTP. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 16 October 4, 2021 Figure 7. Parking Strategies from the 2017 Parking Study source: City of Bremerton, 2017 TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS Travel Time (General Purpose Traffic) Existing travel time for general purpose traffic will be calculated using a combination of model data (existing intersection delay and travel speeds between intersections), data from Google maps, and existing Wi-Fi travel time data for several routes collected by the City in January 2018. Given the change in traffic patterns during the 2020-2021 COVID pandemic, 2019 travel time data from Google will be used. Future travel times will be calculated using a combination of existing travel times and changes to intersection delay and speeds in the Synchro and SIDRA models. SimTraffic software is not anticipated to be used during the travel time analysis for existing or future conditions. Travel Time (Transit) Travel time for transit can be calculated from intersection delay, travel speeds between intersections, dwell time at stops, and average on-time performance data. Intersection delay will be pulled from Synchro and will be dependent on if a bus is using a general-purpose travel lane or a dedicated lane, such as a business access and transit (BAT) or HOV lane. Any proposed BAT lanes or HOV lanes will be modeled in Synchro using a lane utilization factor that will be calculated based on estimated transit and/or HOV volumes. Any proposed queue jumps will also be modeled in Synchro as a separate signal phase. Dwell time, for both in-lane stops and pullouts, and average on-time performance data (or estimates) will be provided by Kitsap Transit. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Methods and Assumptions 17 October 4, 2021 Travel Time Reliability Travel time reliability is a significant aspect of transportation system performance. Because of the extra time required in planning trips—and the uncertainty about what travel times will actually be for a trip—reliability influences decisions about where, when, and how travel is made. Travel time reliability is influenced by fluctuations in demand, physical capacity of the roadways system, traffic control device operations, traffic incidents, inclement weather and work zones. Travel time reliability will be calculated by estimating the average Travel Time Index (TTI mean). TTImean is the ratio of the average travel time in peak period vs free flow travel time. (e.g., TTI of 1.2 = average congestion is 20% higher than free flow trip). The calculations will follow the methodology laid out in Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes: Technical Reference (2014) The National Academies Press. The methodology is based on free-flow speeds, average travel time data, and an estimate of delay (both recurring and nonrecurring delay). Recurring delay is a function of free flow speed and actual speed. Non-recurring (or incident) delay was estimated using lookup tables from the ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) tool developed by the FHWA. The IDAS look up tables containing the anticipated amount of incident-related delay that would be encountered per vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) on the link. The data are stratified by volume to capacity (V/C) ratio (the higher the V/C ratio, the higher the anticipated amount of incident-related delay per VMT) and by the number of lanes on the facility (increases in the number of lanes generally brings about lower anticipated amounts of incident-related delay). PERSON MOBILITY Person mobility will be calculated for both GP traffic and transit. For this study, person mobility will be represented by person hours of delay, or the number of persons multiplied by the difference between the free flow travel time and the alternative travel time, along the travel time corridors. Recent fixed-route bus and worker/driver bus ridership data provided by Kitsap Transit will be used to estimate person mobility for existing conditions. Forecasted ridership data for Kitsap Transit will be used to estimate future person mobility for transit. Future transit ridership will be provided by Kitsap Transit and based on their long-range plan. For the Build alternatives, future transit ridership will be estimated based on the estimated parking diversion discussed above. For the Support Parking and Add Base Parking alternatives, the transit ridership will match No Build conditions. For the Relocate Parking alternative, the total number of diverted NBK-BR employees will be assigned to various fixed-route and worker/driver bus routes along the three major corridors in/out of downtown: Charleston Blvd, SR 303, and Kitsap Way. Person mobility of vehicles will assume an average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 1.12 passengers per car on each segment to determine the total number of people traveling. PSRC’s Transportation 2040 FEIS shows the AVO in the region was 1.6 in 2006 and is estimated to remain stable out to 2040. Data from the public survey and WSDOT CTR was used to modify the AVO to 1.12 to be used in the No Build and Build Alternative analysis. PARK-AND-RIDE USAGE Park-and-ride utilization rates will be based on data received from Kitsap Transit for 2017-2019. Appendix E Existing and Future No Build Traffic Analysis Results Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Traffic Operations Results Existing 2020 No Build 2050 Level of Service Level of Service AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak LOS Delay (s)LOS Delay (s)LOS Delay (s)v/c ratio LOS Delay (s)v/c ratio 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D D 46 E 69 D 51 E 70 3 SR 3 NB Ramps at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D A 9 D 36 A 9 C 35 4 Shorewood Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D A 5 B 10 A 6 B 12 5 Ostrich Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D B 13 D 47 B 13 D 45 6 Oyster Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D A 2 A 4 A 2 A 3 7 National Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D C 22 D 54 F 80 D 53 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D F 80 E 75 F 110 F 88 10 11th St at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D A 8 D 38 A 8 E 61 11 Wycoff Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized D A 7 A 6 A 8 A 6 12 N Callow Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)/6th St (SR 310)Signalized D B 10 B 16 B 11 B 14 13 N Montgomery Ave at 6th St (SR 310)Signalized D A 2 B 16 A 3 B 17 14 Naval Ave at 6th St Signalized E B 18 C 24 C 21 C 28 16 Veneta Ave at 6th St Signalized E A 5 A 8 A 6 A 9 17 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 6th St Signalized E c 35 D 50 D 51 E 73 18 Park Ave at 6th St Signalized E B 11 B 13 B 12 C 29 19 Pacific Ave at 6th Street Unsignalized E B 13 C 20 C 20 F 58 20 Washington Ave at 6th St Signalized E A 10 B 20 C 32 C 25 21 Warren Ave (SR 303) at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D D 39 C 27 D 46 D 44 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signalized E D 50 F 88 D 44 E 78 23 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 13th St Signalized E A 7 B 19 A 5 D 36 24 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 16th St Signalized E B 13 B 13 B 17 B 17 25 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sheridan Rd Signalized E C 30 D 46 D 41 F 93 26 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sylvan Way Signalized E B 17 C 32 C 22 C 31 27 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Hollis St Signalized E A 4 A 10 A 4 B 12 28 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Riddell Rd Signalized E C 30 C 34 C 25 D 41 29 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Furneys Ln Signalized E B 14 C 28 B 14 D 46 30 N Callow Ave at 11th St Signalized E A 9 B 14 C 25 C 24 31 Naval Ave at 11th St Signalized E A 9 C 21 C 21 C 26 32 High Ave at 11th St Signalized E B 18 B 12 C 21 B 19 33 Park Ave at 11th St Signalized E A 8 C 21 A 9 D 43 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge Signalized E F 214 E 64 0.86 1.34 35 N Callow Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D B 19 C 23 B 19 C 25 36 N Montgomery Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D B 12 B 20 A 9 B 20 37 Naval Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D C 31 D 37 D 41 E 55 38 State Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D A 10 B 11 A 5 A 7 40 Park Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D A 3 A 6 A 4 A 9 41 Burwell St (SR 304) Tunnel Signalized D A 6 A 7 A 6 A 9 42 Pacific Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D B 12 A 9 C 23 B 10 43 Washington Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized D A 10 B 12 B 19 C 26 44 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at S Cambrian Ave/Farragut Ave Signalized D C 29 C 35 C 29 D 38 45 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at Charleston Beach Rd Signalized D C 28 D 45 C 29 D 47 46 Union Ave/Auto Center Blvd at Werner Rd Signalized E B 11 B 18 B 12 B 20 47 Oyster Bay Ave/Auto Center Way at Werner Rd/Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized E A 9 B 14 A 9 B 15 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized E B 20 F 83 C 22 F 105 93 Austin Dr at SR 3 NB Ramps Signalized D A 7 A 8 A 7 B 12 94 Austin Dr at SR 3 SB Ramps Unsignalized D B 14 D 28 C 19 F 178 104 SR 3 SB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Unsignalized D F 82 F 508 F 179 F 1537 105 SR 3 NB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized D A 8 A 8 A 8 A 9 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Unsignalized D D 29 E 43 E 44 F 110 202 SR 16 Spur/Sam Christopherson Dr at SR 3 Signalized D C 26 D 41 F 142 F 173 216 SR 3 at Imperial Way Signalized D A 9 B 11 F 365 F 246 307 Naval St at 15th St Signalized E A 6 A 6 C 20 B 19 316 Park Ave at 5th St Unsignalized E B 12 B 10 C 16 B 13 317 Park Ave at 4th St Unsignalized E A 8 A 9 A 8 B 10 318 Pacific Avenue at 5th St Unsignalized E A 10 B 11 B 12 B 14 319 Pacific Avenue at 4th St Unsignalized E A 9 A 8 B 11 A 9 400 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 5th St Unsignalized E B 11 B 14 B 12 B 11 401 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 4th St Unsignalized E B 11 B 13 B 13 C 16 402 Naval Gate Signalized F 153 F 584 F 153 F 584 403 Montgomery Gate Signalized F 414 F 414 F 414 F 414 404 Charleston Gate Signalized F 204 F 204 F 204 F 204 StandardIntersection NameID Intersection Control Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Traffic Operations Results 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized #275 75 100 75 50 75 475 500 3 SR 3 NB Ramps at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 m 300 75 225 50 150 4 Shorewood Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 250 m 25 m 25 25 m 25 75 5 Ostrich Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 425 m 25 50 300 75 50 6 Oyster Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 200 m 25 25 75 50 50 7 National Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 #750 m 25 150 50 100 100 25 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 50 #900 m 25 50 275 50 50 100 75 10 11th St at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 150 125 100 125 11 Wycoff Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 25 225 m 25 25 50 50 12 N Callow Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)/6th St (SR 310)Signalized m 25 350 25 50 75 125 50 175 13 N Montgomery Ave at 6th St (SR 310)Signalized m 25 125 25 50 50 50 14 Naval Ave at 6th St Signalized 25 300 75 75 75 50 50 100 16 Veneta Ave at 6th St Signalized 75 50 25 25 17 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 6th St Signalized 225 #425 75 125 50 200 75 200 18 Park Ave at 6th St Signalized 150 50 75 25 150 19 Pacific Ave at 6th Street Unsignalized 20 Washington Ave at 6th St Signalized 75 25 50 225 21 Warren Ave (SR 303) at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized #475 200 25 50 225 50 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signalized 275 175 150 m 25 m 225 m 25 275 25 23 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 13th St Signalized 200 50 100 24 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 16th St Signalized 50 250 75 450 50 25 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sheridan Rd Signalized 75 75 75 150 150 25 125 375 50 #325 500 26 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sylvan Way Signalized 125 125 75 150 100 50 m 25 400 m 25 25 75 27 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Hollis St Signalized 50 m 25 425 m 25 250 28 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Riddell Rd Signalized 175 75 75 75 75 50 125 325 50 200 25 29 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Furneys Ln Signalized 50 100 m 50 150 m 25 75 325 30 N Callow Ave at 11th St Signalized 275 25 25 25 25 50 50 75 31 Naval Ave at 11th St Signalized m 25 50 75 50 50 50 100 32 High Ave at 11th St Signalized 25 150 25 175 25 25 50 50 33 Park Ave at 11th St Signalized 25 75 25 25 100 25 75 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge Signalized #600 125 150 100 50 35 N Callow Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 175 225 175 150 250 175 36 N Montgomery Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 300 100 25 250 37 Naval Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 200 750 325 200 150 125 150 350 38 State Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 150 175 100 100 40 Park Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 75 50 50 41 Burwell St (SR 304) Tunnel Signalized 25 42 Pacific Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 150 200 175 225 43 Washington Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 100 25 75 25 44 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at S Cambrian Ave/Farragut Ave Signalized 75 #350 150 100 50 50 600 175 225 45 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at Charleston Beach Rd Signalized #400 25 50 25 750 125 175 125 46 Union Ave/Auto Center Blvd at Werner Rd Signalized 25 50 50 100 25 50 25 50 25 47 Oyster Bay Ave/Auto Center Way at Werner Rd/Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 25 75 100 75 50 25 50 50 25 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized #250 100 25 75 100 50 75 93 Austin Dr at SR 3 NB Ramps Signalized 50 50 50 75 94 Austin Dr at SR 3 SB Ramps Unsignalized 104 SR 3 SB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Unsignalized 105 SR 3 NB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 125 75 175 50 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Unsignalized 202 SR 16 Spur/Sam Christopherson Dr at SR 3 Signalized 25 #1,075 150 25 275 275 150 175 150 216 SR 3 at Imperial Way Signalized 75 25 50 #600 25 150 307 Naval St at 15th St Signalized 25 25 25 25 316 Park Ave at 5th St Unsignalized 317 Park Ave at 4th St Unsignalized 318 Pacific Avenue at 5th St Unsignalized 319 Pacific Avenue at 4th St Unsignalized 400 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 5th St Unsignalized 401 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 4th St Unsignalized 402 Naval Gate Signalized #50 #80 403 Montgomery Gate Signalized #150 404 Charleston Gate Signalized #100 25 ID Intersection Name Intersection Control SBR Existing 2020 95th Percentile Queue Rounded (ft) AM Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Traffic Operations Results 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 300 250 300 225 175 125 #825 #825 3 SR 3 NB Ramps at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 75 275 100 550 150 150 4 Shorewood Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 75 325 75 m 25 m 900 m 25 150 25 5 Ostrich Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 575 25 m 50 875 #575 75 50 6 Oyster Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 325 25 m 25 725 125 50 7 National Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 425 50 m 400 m 1,475 #275 125 50 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized #425 400 m 50 100 #1,750 50 225 125 75 200 #225 10 11th St at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized #450 125 #500 100 11 Wycoff Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 25 100 m 75 200 100 75 12 N Callow Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)/6th St (SR 310)Signalized 25 200 m 50 525 #175 250 75 200 13 N Montgomery Ave at 6th St (SR 310)Signalized m 25 75 50 425 #450 25 14 Naval Ave at 6th St Signalized 50 200 125 425 275 #325 50 75 16 Veneta Ave at 6th St Signalized 100 225 100 50 17 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 6th St Signalized 350 300 125 #500 #375 375 m 25 25 18 Park Ave at 6th St Signalized 125 25 225 #400 75 19 Pacific Ave at 6th Street Unsignalized 20 Washington Ave at 6th St Signalized 275 100 300 150 21 Warren Ave (SR 303) at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 450 375 50 50 125 50 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signalized #675 250 #550 m 100 #800 m 100 m 375 m 75 23 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 13th St Signalized #450 75 m 325 100 24 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 16th St Signalized 125 m 150 450 475 50 25 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sheridan Rd Signalized 125 100 100 250 250 100 #425 1,250 125 325 375 26 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sylvan Way Signalized 200 175 75 #250 #225 100 m 75 500 m 75 75 525 27 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Hollis St Signalized 150 50 m 25 150 m 75 375 28 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Riddell Rd Signalized #300 175 75 #250 250 75 75 950 m 175 425 m 75 29 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Furneys Ln Signalized 100 25 275 25 m 75 400 m 50 #400 500 25 30 N Callow Ave at 11th St Signalized m 75 m 25 25 #125 125 50 50 125 31 Naval Ave at 11th St Signalized m 50 150 m 75 425 #150 125 100 125 32 High Ave at 11th St Signalized m 25 175 25 400 50 75 75 75 33 Park Ave at 11th St Signalized 50 150 25 25 350 #375 25 75 25 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge Signalized 275 125 #875 #475 25 35 N Callow Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 75 #700 #675 275 100 150 36 N Montgomery Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 300 #425 #425 50 37 Naval Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized #500 375 125 600 300 450 125 200 38 State Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 150 400 150 75 40 Park Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 75 75 75 41 Burwell St (SR 304) Tunnel Signalized 25 25 42 Pacific Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 100 50 150 100 43 Washington Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 175 50 125 50 44 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at S Cambrian Ave/Farragut Ave Signalized 100 125 25 #375 225 75 50 275 #275 450 45 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at Charleston Beach Rd Signalized #250 575 550 75 450 50 925 46 Union Ave/Auto Center Blvd at Werner Rd Signalized 25 100 #450 75 25 50 50 125 175 47 Oyster Bay Ave/Auto Center Way at Werner Rd/Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 50 175 175 225 75 50 100 175 75 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized #375 75 50 300 #300 125 #300 93 Austin Dr at SR 3 NB Ramps Signalized 75 50 75 175 94 Austin Dr at SR 3 SB Ramps Unsignalized 104 SR 3 SB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Unsignalized 105 SR 3 NB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 125 250 150 50 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Unsignalized 202 SR 16 Spur/Sam Christopherson Dr at SR 3 Signalized 25 #750 200 75 725 #475 200 200 #625 216 SR 3 at Imperial Way Signalized 125 50 25 275 25 #425 307 Naval St at 15th St Signalized 50 50 50 25 316 Park Ave at 5th St Unsignalized 317 Park Ave at 4th St Unsignalized 318 Pacific Avenue at 5th St Unsignalized 319 Pacific Avenue at 4th St Unsignalized 400 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 5th St Unsignalized 401 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 4th St Unsignalized 402 Naval Gate Signalized #200 25 403 Montgomery Gate Signalized #150 404 Charleston Gate Signalized 25 #100 ID Intersection Name Intersection Control SBR Existing 2020 95th Percentile Queue Rounded (ft) PM Peak EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Traffic Operations Results 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized #300 75 100 100 50 75 #575 #550 3 SR 3 NB Ramps at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 0 m 225 75 175 50 #250 4 Shorewood Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 350 m 25 m 25 25 75 5 Ostrich Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 375 m 0 50 325 75 50 6 Oyster Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 250 m 25 25 100 50 50 7 National Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 #875 m 25 150 50 100 125 25 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 50 #1,050 m 0 50 275 50 50 100 75 10 11th St at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 175 150 100 25 11 Wycoff Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 25 275 m 25 25 75 50 12 N Callow Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)/6th St (SR 310)Signalized m 25 #625 75 50 75 150 50 175 13 N Montgomery Ave at 6th St (SR 310)Signalized m 0 50 25 50 75 25 14 Naval Ave at 6th St Signalized 25 475 150 100 125 100 75 50 225 16 Veneta Ave at 6th St Signalized 100 50 50 50 17 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 6th St Signalized 225 #425 75 150 m 25 m 225 50 425 18 Park Ave at 6th St Signalized 225 100 100 25 175 19 Pacific Ave at 6th Street Unsignalized 20 Washington Ave at 6th St Signalized 75 25 75 525 21 Warren Ave (SR 303) at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized #575 #325 25 50 m#425 200 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signalized 350 225 200 m 25 m 225 m 25 300 400 23 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 13th St Signalized 225 50 50 25 24 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 16th St Signalized 75 #425 175 575 100 25 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sheridan Rd Signalized 100 100 125 #225 #250 75 #200 650 100 #400 300 26 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sylvan Way Signalized 175 175 125 225 150 75 m 75 175 m 25 50 475 27 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Hollis St Signalized 75 m 25 100 m 25 125 28 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Riddell Rd Signalized 250 125 100 100 125 75 75 100 25 175 25 29 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Furneys Ln Signalized 75 125 m 50 175 m 25 125 525 30 N Callow Ave at 11th St Signalized 25 225 25 25 25 50 50 50 75 31 Naval Ave at 11th St Signalized m 25 75 #100 100 50 50 125 32 High Ave at 11th St Signalized 25 50 25 225 25 25 75 75 33 Park Ave at 11th St Signalized 25 100 25 25 125 50 75 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge Signalized 375 375 75 75 75 75 35 N Callow Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 200 250 225 150 275 175 36 N Montgomery Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 375 125 25 275 37 Naval Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 250 1,050 400 275 175 300 m 200 650 m 75 38 State Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 200 225 100 125 40 Park Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 125 50 50 41 Burwell St (SR 304) Tunnel Signalized 25 42 Pacific Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 200 375 #400 350 43 Washington Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 250 75 125 75 44 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at S Cambrian Ave/Farragut Ave Signalized 75 #375 150 100 50 50 625 175 225 45 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at Charleston Beach Rd Signalized #400 25 50 25 775 125 175 125 46 Union Ave/Auto Center Blvd at Werner Rd Signalized 25 50 50 100 25 50 50 50 25 47 Oyster Bay Ave/Auto Center Way at Werner Rd/Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 25 75 125 100 50 25 50 50 25 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized #300 100 25 75 125 50 75 93 Austin Dr at SR 3 NB Ramps Signalized 50 50 75 125 94 Austin Dr at SR 3 SB Ramps Unsignalized 104 SR 3 SB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Unsignalized 105 SR 3 NB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 150 100 200 50 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Unsignalized 202 SR 16 Spur/Sam Christopherson Dr at SR 3 Signalized 25 #1,075 150 25 275 275 150 175 150 216 SR 3 at Imperial Way Signalized 125 50 100 #2,075 50 #675 307 Naval St at 15th St Signalized 100 75 25 25 316 Park Ave at 5th St Unsignalized 317 Park Ave at 4th St Unsignalized 318 Pacific Avenue at 5th St Unsignalized 319 Pacific Avenue at 4th St Unsignalized 400 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 5th St Unsignalized 401 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 4th St Unsignalized 402 Naval Gate Signalized #50 #100 403 Montgomery Gate Signalized #150 404 Charleston Gate Signalized #100 25 ID Intersection Name Intersection Control WBT NBT SBT SBR AM Peak 95th Percentile Queue Rounded (ft) SBLEBLEBR WBL No Build 2050 WBR NBL NBREBT Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Traffic Operations Results 2 Auto Center Way/SR 3 SB Off-Ramp at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 325 275 275 225 175 125 #875 #900 3 SR 3 NB Ramps at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 75 275 125 #450 150 175 4 Shorewood Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 100 350 75 m 25 m 1,150 m 25 150 25 5 Ostrich Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 625 25 m 75 #350 #600 100 50 6 Oyster Bay Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 200 m 25 m 25 575 125 75 7 National Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized m 25 475 50 m 400 m 1,475 #275 125 50 8 Marine Dr at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized #450 450 m 50 100 #1,975 50 225 125 75 200 #225 10 11th St at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized #475 150 #600 525 11 Wycoff Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)Signalized 25 125 m 25 125 100 75 12 N Callow Ave at Kitsap Way (SR 310)/6th St (SR 310)Signalized 25 250 m 50 #825 #175 275 75 225 13 N Montgomery Ave at 6th St (SR 310)Signalized m 25 100 50 525 #525 25 14 Naval Ave at 6th St Signalized m 75 m 300 150 #625 m 275 m 450 m 50 50 175 16 Veneta Ave at 6th St Signalized 125 300 125 50 17 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 6th St Signalized #575 #475 150 #675 m#500 325 m 150 #500 18 Park Ave at 6th St Signalized 175 50 #325 #600 100 19 Pacific Ave at 6th Street Unsignalized 20 Washington Ave at 6th St Signalized #475 125 675 250 21 Warren Ave (SR 303) at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 625 525 75 50 m 125 m 125 22 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 11th St Signalized #875 300 #725 m 50 m#875 m#100 m 400 m#375 23 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 13th St Signalized #600 100 m 150 75 24 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 16th St Signalized 150 m 125 m 325 700 75 25 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sheridan Rd Signalized 150 125 100 #375 #375 100 #425 #1,900 175 m#525 850 26 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Sylvan Way Signalized #300 #225 100 #375 #275 175 m 75 m 100 m 25 m 350 825 27 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at Hollis St Signalized 175 50 m 25 150 m 75 750 28 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Riddell Rd Signalized #450 250 100 #275 #375 100 m 200 #1,650 m 225 825 25 29 Wheaton Way (SR 303) at NE Furneys Ln Signalized 125 50 #375 75 m 75 m#1,400 m 25 #525 800 25 30 N Callow Ave at 11th St Signalized 50 375 m 25 100 125 150 50 75 150 31 Naval Ave at 11th St Signalized m 50 100 m 75 m 425 #175 150 125 150 32 High Ave at 11th St Signalized m 25 225 25 525 50 75 75 75 33 Park Ave at 11th St Signalized 75 175 25 50 450 #575 25 100 25 34 Washington Ave at Manette Bridge Signalized 125 125 3,025 3,025 100 100 35 N Callow Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 75 #825 #825 #325 125 175 36 N Montgomery Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized #425 #575 #425 75 37 Naval Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized #650 600 150 #1,025 350 #1,175 m#200 300 175 38 State Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 200 600 150 75 40 Park Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 100 125 125 41 Burwell St (SR 304) Tunnel Signalized 50 50 42 Pacific Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized 200 75 350 200 43 Washington Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Signalized #475 75 225 50 44 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at S Cambrian Ave/Farragut Ave Signalized 100 125 25 #400 #250 75 50 300 #300 500 45 Charleston Blvd (SR 304) at Charleston Beach Rd Signalized #275 575 550 75 475 50 #1,025 46 Union Ave/Auto Center Blvd at Werner Rd Signalized 25 100 #525 75 25 50 50 125 175 47 Oyster Bay Ave/Auto Center Way at Werner Rd/Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 50 175 200 250 75 50 100 200 75 48 National Ave at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized #400 100 50 325 #325 125 #375 93 Austin Dr at SR 3 NB Ramps Signalized 75 50 100 #375 94 Austin Dr at SR 3 SB Ramps Unsignalized 104 SR 3 SB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Unsignalized 105 SR 3 NB Ramps at Loxie Eagans Blvd Signalized 150 325 150 50 135 Chester Ave at Burwell St (SR 304)Unsignalized 202 SR 16 Spur/Sam Christopherson Dr at SR 3 Signalized 50 #1,550 575 #125 #1,525 #875 325 #325 #1,125 25 216 SR 3 at Imperial Way Signalized #300 25 75 50 #1,100 50 #1,600 25 307 Naval St at 15th St Signalized 125 150 75 25 316 Park Ave at 5th St Unsignalized 317 Park Ave at 4th St Unsignalized 318 Pacific Avenue at 5th St Unsignalized 319 Pacific Avenue at 4th St Unsignalized 400 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 5th St Unsignalized 401 Warren Ave (SR 303) at 4th St Unsignalized 402 Naval Gate Signalized #200 25 403 Montgomery Gate Signalized #150 404 Charleston Gate Signalized 25 #100 ID Intersection Name Intersection Control NBLEBLEBR WBLEBT WBT No Build 2050 SBR PM Peak 95th Percentile Queue Rounded (ft) NBT SBTNBR SBLWBR Appendix F Existing Economic Assessment JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 1 City of Bremerton Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan: Economic and Market Profile DISCUSSION DRAFT May 3, 2021 S UMMARY OF F INDINGS Socioeconomic Profile Demographics  The population of the study area has been relatively constant over the past two decades and has remained below growth forecasts, despite land use capacity to accommodate significant numbers of new people.  Bremerton’s growth has not kept pace with surrounding county and regional areas where unprecedented growth has occurred in the past decade. One of the reasons the study area is not reaching its full growth potential is because the housing market has proven to be uncompetitive with surrounding areas.  The study area has a more diverse population than Kitsap County, but less diverse than the Central Puget Sound Region.  Residents in the study area are slightly younger than Kitsap County residents. The median age in the City of Bremerton is 33, compared to 39 in Kitsap County, 38 in Snohomish County, and 37 in King County.  Most study area residents were high school graduates but a smaller share of residents than in Kitsap County and the Central Puget Sound Region have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Industry and Employment  The study area’s economy is heavily dependent on government employment, mostly associated with the presence of NBK-BR. Although this is a high level of dependence on a single sector, military activities related to NBK-BR represent a stable source of employment that has been more resistant to economic downturns.  Despite government making up the highest share of total employment in Bremerton and experiencing significant growth, there are limitations to accommodating the growth within the study area, for example in the Eastside Village Center. Security requirements limit the amount of office space and other real estate that can be for military activities off-base. This restricts the ability for the private market to take advantage of growth opportunities in this sector.  Bremerton has seen less employment growth than other urban areas in the county (Port Orchard, Bainbridge Island, and Poulsbo) over the past JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 2 several years. Although the City of Bremerton has experienced notable increases in manufacturing employment mostly related to PSIC, employment in other sectors has generally declined in the past decade. Land Use and Real Estate Land Use Patterns  Bremerton has not achieved the level of industrial development that it has thus far planned for outside of Naval Base Kitsap, especially within the PSIC-B, but also in the industrially zoned Werner Road area of the City.  Much of the City’s high-density residential development has occurred in planned for zones along SR-303 north of the Warren Avenue Bridge. These areas lie along the primary northern commuter route to and from NBK-BR and downtown Bremerton.  To date, the mix of land uses along the SR-303 corridor include significant tracts of vacant land located in areas currently designated District Center. District Center zones are intended as “small downtowns” with moderate to high-density mixed uses at their core, transitioning out to single-family areas. Real Estate Market  The study area has a current inventory of 2.1 million square feet (sf) of office space, 3.5 million square feet of retail space, and 5,266 units of multifamily residential as of Q2, 2021. No new construction is currently underway in the office and retail segments, but 176 units of multifamily are under construction in the study area (representing almost two-thirds of all units being built countywide at this moment).  Office: The shift to remote work driven by the Covid-19 pandemic has had less of a negative impact on office segment in Bremerton than in other places in the region. Nevertheless, lease rates and sale prices per square foot for office space remain far below those of the region, and below the average for Kitsap County, indicating continued softness and stagnant demand in this segment.  Retail: The retail submarket has fared somewhat worse. With market rents and sale prices at around half the regional average, this segment also underperforms both the region and the County. The 6.3% vacancy rate is more than double that of the region, and almost double the County rate. This reflects the profound challenges that businesses relying on in- person transactions, including bars, restaurants, gyms, and brick and mortar retailers, have faced throughout this pandemic.  Multifamily: The study area contains 64% of the County’s multifamily residential inventory, with 5,266 units in 126 buildings. Most of these buildings are older, with prewar construction in the downtown area, and 70s-80’s development elsewhere in the city. Unlike the commercial segments, this segment is delivering new inventory even during the JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 3 pandemic period with 176 new units under construction and 238 delivered in the last 12 months.  Many Bremerton properties, both commercial and residential, suffer from weak “curb appeal” due to several factors including building age and deferred maintenance. Where desirable sites exist, many businesses find it challenging to obtain financing for new construction, expansion, or capital costs.  Many investors find that new development is often easier and less expensive in unincorporated areas that also have urban services, or where public sewer and water systems are not required, and road and other standards are considerably lower than in urban areas. Those areas are also more likely to have larger vacant parcels available, less expensive land, and occasionally urban services to further stimulate growth.  While the multifamily residential submarket is one brighter spot for Bremerton, many potential infill sites that could represent opportunities for increased density and newer, more desirable inventory are often stymied by a lack of willingness to convert on the part of property owners. Many of Bremerton's oversized lots and other vacant infill sites are being enjoyed by their owners for yard areas, additional off‐street parking, RV storage, or to protect views, for instance. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 4 I NTRODUCTION Background and Purpose The City of Bremerton and the Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton (NBK-BR) are partnering through a Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment grant to create a comprehensive commuter traffic plan. The Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan will aim to address transportation issues impacting the Bremerton area and ensure NBK-BR meets its missions for national defense while supporting the City’s long-range growth needs. The plan will document the specific purpose and need for improvements, develop and screen a range of reasonable alternatives, and identify preferred alternatives for transportation improvements and parking solutions in the study area. Community Attributes was commissioned to provide an analysis of existing conditions in the study area, assess development suitability and potential and the economic benefits of various land use types with related transportation improvements as defined in the proposed alternatives. The objective of this report is to provide an understanding of current economic conditions, historic growth trends, and real estate market conditions in the study area. Furthermore, the analysis aims to outline the role of NBK-BR in supporting economic activity and competitiveness in the City of Bremerton and region. Methods The economic and market profile analysis includes an analysis of current and future land use and analysis of economic and real estate market indicators. Data used in this report are drawn from several sources: existing studies and analysis completed by Community Attributes for the SR 303 Corridor Study and the Joint Land Use Study, and public data sources including City of Bremerton, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), Kitsap Economic Development Alliance (KEDA), Kitsap County Assessor’s office and CoStar. Organization of Report The remainder of this report is organized as follows:  Socioeconomic Profile. Describes the study area current and historic population, including a breakdown by race, age, education and income, and industry and employment. Provides an overview of the importance of NBK to the study area and the region.  Land Use and Real Estate. Provides a summary of land use and real estate metrics for the study area, including vacancy rates, absorption, sales, and lease rates. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 5 S OCIOECONOMIC P ROFILE Study Area The study area is the City of Bremerton Urban Growth Area (UGA) which includes the City and the City’s unincorporated UGAs located outside of current city limits. NBK-BR is located within the study area on the south side of the city of Bremerton, bounded by 1st Street to the north, SR 304 (Charleston Boulevard) to the west, the Bremerton Ferry terminal to the east, and Sinclair Inlet to the south. (Exhibit 1). Exhibit 1. Study Area Source: Parametrix, 2021. Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) is the largest installation in the Northwest, and the third largest in the U.S. NBK’s primary areas of operation include Bangor, Bremerton, and Keyport. A Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) of Naval Base Kitsap found that the Navy contributed $4 billion in industry output and payroll expenditures to the Kitsap County region, employed more than 45,500 workers, and generated $129 million in state and local tax revenues. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 6 NBK-BR encompasses approximately 400 acres of land, 400 acres of submerged marine Right to Use lands, 3.4 miles of shoreline, 382 buildings, and six dry docks for wet or dry berthing of all sizes and classes of vessels. The eastern portion of the naval base is a fenced, high-security area known as the Controlled Industrial Area. The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PSNS and IMF) is the major tenant command on NBK-BR. NBK-BR contributes to the local and regional economy through significant military expenditures, providing good-paying jobs and job training and education opportunities for people in specialized trades, as well as demand for housing and consumer products. According to a study on the economic impact of military and defense contract spending1 completed by Community Attributes for Washington State Department of Commerce, the total statewide economic impact of defense contracts associated with NBK-BR was $278.6 million in output, $92.9 million in wages and approximately 1,500 jobs (2017 to 2019 annual average). Roughly 75% of the impact occurs in Kitsap. Navy spending in the region has been a stable source of economic stimulus and has served as an economic “shock absorber” which has minimized the impacts of economic downturns. The City of Bremerton’s 2019 Market Analysis2 commissioned to study the Eastside Village Employment Center highlights other long-term economic development considerations of NBK-BR:  As the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is being modernized through a 20- year, $21 billion plan covering all four public major shipyards, space constraints remain for NBK-BR. Directives from the Department of Defense restrict the use of leased office space and other real estate for military use outside of government facilities. This limits the ability for the private market to take advantage of NBK’s growth opportunities.  While NBK-BR require private contractors for key functions and expertise, the technical and professional workers employed but these contractors may not live or work in Bremerton. Contracts are awarded on a performance basis nationwide and the office and facility needs of contractors may be fulfilled on NBK-BR or in other locations. Attracting these workers to the city in the future would require a long- term effort and investment in building local quality of life. 1 This includes all contracts and grants with the Department of Defense contracts and Department of Homeland Security contracts and grants for Coast Guard activities. 2 Bremerton Eastside Employment Center Economic and Market Analysis Report, City of Bremerton, November 2019. https://www.bremertonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8477/Eastside-Village-Market- Study-PDF JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 7 Demographics Population The total population in the study area was 51,100 people in 2020, with 82% of the population within the City of Bremerton (Exhibit 2). This represents almost 19% of the total population in Kitsap County. Between 2000 and 2020, population in the study area grew at an average annual rate of 0.5%, which is an insignificant increase given the regular fluctuations in the military population of two to three thousand people, due to arrival and departure of NBK-BR personnel. This is consistent with the trend observed even before 2000 – the City’s decennial census reports from 1970 to 2010 show a negligible increase of less than 2,500 people3. Exhibit 2. Study Area Population, 2000 – 2020 Sources: Office of Financial Management, 20201; Community Attributes, 2021. Bremerton’s growth has not kept pace with surrounding county and regional areas where unprecedented growth has occurred in the past decade. The City of Bremerton’s share of the County’s total population has also decreased overtime, from 25% in 1980 to 15% in 2020. Comparatively, the County and the Central Puget Sound Region (King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap County) have experienced significant population growth since 2000. During the past twenty years, Kitsap County population increased from 232,000 in 2000 to more than 272,000 in 2020, an increase of 17%. The region’s 3 City of Bremerton Comprehensive Plan, Housing Appendix, 2016. https://www.bremertonwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/169/Housing-Appendix- PDF?bidId= JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 8 population went from 3.3 million to 4.3 million in the same period, representing an increase of 30%. (Exhibit 3) Exhibit 3. Study Area and Regional Population Growth, 2000 – 2020 Sources: Office of Financial Management, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. Over the past 40 years, the study area’s lack of population growth despite land use capacity eludes both past and current growth forecasts for the City. The City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan suggests that the study area population will grow to 66,900 by 2036, which indicates a need to accommodate an additional 15,800 people over the 2020-2036 period. This would be an increase of roughly 31%, which is much higher than the historic rate of 10% over the 2004-2020 period. (Exhibit 4) Exhibit 4. Study Area Historic and Projected Population Sources: City of Kirkland, 2016; Community Attributes, 2021. Alternate population projections from PSRC’s VISION 2050 suggest that growth in the study area, which is designated as a “Metropolitan City”, would add 33,000 new residents by 2050. This would be a 66% increase over the 2017 population of the study area and would represent significant growth rivalling the population increase seen in Bremerton and surrounding UGA in the post-war era. Year City of Bremerton Unincorporated UGA Total Study Area 2012 39,700 9,100 48,800 2015 39,400 9,600 49,000 2021 43,000 10,600 53,600 2036 53,400 13,500 66,900 JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 9 One possible reason for the area’s stagnant population is revealed in the Housing Element of the City of Bremerton’s Comprehensive Plan. The Plan mentions that current conditions in the housing market are in large part responsible for the City’s lack of growth:  Supply side factors include the high cost of redeveloping existing city lots compared to the abundance of undeveloped parcels or new development opportunities in Kitsap County; Bremerton does not have as many green field or empty canvas opportunities as are available in other parts of the County which often represent a less complicated site development than infill typically requires.  In terms of demand, Bremerton’s existing housing stock, dating back to the previous growth periods of the 1940s and 1960s, fails to address the local needs for housing types. The City has experienced substantial growth in senior citizens, singles (non‐Married, no children), and single parent households, which puts pressure on the housing market to provide a variety of housing types. Race and Ethnicity In 2019, there were 2.8 more White residents in the study area than any other race or ethnicity. Roughly 9% of the total population in the study area have two or more races. The study area has a more diverse population than Kitsap County, with higher shares of people of two or more races, Asians, Black or African Americans, and people of another race. However, the study area has less diversity than the region. White people constitute 74% of the population in Bremerton UGA, compared to 69% of the population in the Central Puget Sound Region. (Exhibit 5) Exhibit 5. Study Area and Regional Population by Race Sources: United States Census Bureau, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 10 Age The study area has a younger population than Kitsap County, with more residents in the 18 to 34 age range. The median age in the City of Bremerton is 33 according to U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data for 2019 (5-Year Estimates), compared to 39 in Kitsap County, 38 in Snohomish County, and 37 in King County. (Exhibit 6) Exhibit 6. Study Area and Regional Population by Age Sources: United States Census Bureau, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. Education Roughly 69% of study area residents age 25 and older were high school graduates, compared to 62% for Kitsap County and 50% for the region. Residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher made up 25% of study area residents age 25 and older, significantly less than Kitsap County’s 33% and 42% in the Central Puget Sound Region. (Exhibit 7) Olympic College in Bremerton has contributed to the increasing number of individuals obtaining Associate and bachelor’s degrees in the study area as well as accessibility to workforce development and technical training. The College offers associate degrees and certificates, as well as four-year degrees from both Western Washington University and Washington State University. The College has been growing and one of the most recent investments into the Campus was the Olympic College Instruction Center (CIC) which hosts the college’s health occupations programs and the Fine Arts, Music and Theater programs. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 11 Exhibit 7. Study Area and Regional Educational Attainment Sources: United States Census Bureau, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. Income In 2019, median household income in the study area was mostly below the countywide median household income of roughly $75,400, except for a block group on the north side of Belfair Valley Road. The City of Bremerton household income in the same period was $52,700, which is almost $23,000 below the Kitsap County median. Around 16.5% of the population for who poverty status is determined in the City of Bremerton live below the poverty line, compared to 7.5% for Kitsap County. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 12 Exhibit 8. Study Area Median Household Income Sources: United States Census Bureau, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. Industry and Employment The most recent available data on study area employment from the City’s Comprehensive Plan indicates that in 2015 there were 33,000 jobs in the study area. The plan projects that employment in the study area will increase to 50,700 jobs by 2036. This would represent a total increase of 17,700 jobs, or about 2.1% per year on average. Alternate population projections from PSRC’s VISION 2050 suggest that growth in the study area would add 20,000 new jobs between 2017 and 2050. (Exhibit 9) JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 13 Exhibit 9. Study Area Historic and Projected Employment Sources: City of Kirkland, 2016; Community Attributes, 2021. Limited employment data availability for the study area restricts the industry and employment analysis to the City of Bremerton (not including the Unincorporated UGA). Total employment in the City of Bremerton was 32,400 in 2019, an increase from 28,000 in 2006. Employment was relatively steady between 2006 and 2013 but grew by 4,000 jobs between 2013 and 2019. (Exhibit 10) Over this period, the share of Kitsap County employment in Bremerton remained stable – between 35% and 36% of total County jobs. Exhibit 10. City of Bremerton Employment, 2006 – 2019 Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. Employment in the City of Bremerton increased at a compound annual average rate (CAGR) of 1.1% from 2006 to 2018, compared to 0.6% county wide and 1.6% regionally. The growth in employment in the study area accounted for 61% of the total employment growth in Kitsap County during this time. (Exhibit 11) Year City of Bremerton Unincorporated UGA Total Study Area 2012 28,200 2,300 30,500 2015 30,500 2,500 33,000 2021 35,200 2,900 38,100 2036 46,900 3,800 50,700 JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 14 Exhibit 11. City of Bremerton and Regional Employment Growth, 2006 – 2019 Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. In 2019, over 52% of total employment in the study area was concentrated in the government sector. The share of government jobs as a percentage of total employment in the study area has increased since 2006 (Exhibit 12). Most of the jobs in this sector are associated with NBK-BR, including the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. Other public agencies that contribute to this employment include the Bremerton Transportation Center and state and county government services facilities. Although Bremerton’s growth patterns remain heavily dependent on military and other government expenditures, this provides a buffer in the local and regional economy during periods of economic volatility. The services sector employs the next greatest number of workers in the City, with an estimated 28% in 2019. The most significant industries within this sector are health care and social services, with approximately 4,700 jobs (53% of total services employment) in 2019, followed by accommodation and food services with 1,800 jobs (20%). The healthcare sector has seen strong growth between 2006 and 2011 but has declined since 2014. The Eastside Employment Center (EEC), a long-standing employment center in the City, has been home to Harrison Medical Center and other healthcare companies. The Medical Center is relocating to Silverdale, with the full departure of the hospital expected to be completed by 2023. Many of the related businesses supporting the hospital are also relocating. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 15 Exhibit 12. City of Bremerton Employment by Industry, 2006 and 2019 Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. Note: Other includes Construction/Resources, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, and Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities. Although manufacturing represents only 3% of total employment in the City, the sector has experienced a significant increase since 2006. Since 2006, manufacturing employment in Bremerton has increased by 23% per year on average. As of 2019, the City includes about 41% of the County’s total employment in manufacturing. The growth is related to the annexation of the Puget Sound Industrial Center (PSIC). All other industries except government, and wholesale, transportation and utilities (WTU) have experienced a decline in the number of jobs from 2006 to 2019, with the most significant decrease in finance, insurance, and real estate at around 2.5% per year on average. (Exhibit 13) JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 16 Exhibit 13. Average Annual Change in Study Area Employment by Industry, 2006 – 2019 Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. Note: WTU stands for to Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities; FIRE stands for Finance, Insurance and Real Estate; Const/Res stands for Construction/Resources. L AND U SE AND R EAL E STATE This section outlines land use and real estate metrics for the study area. Land use analysis includes a look at future land use policies as described in Bremerton’s most recent (2016) Comprehensive Plan, how they have been implemented with zoning and building regulations, and how well current land use lines up with that vision. The subsequent real estate market analysis describes the most recent performance of the office, retail, and multifamily segments, and looks back at trends over the past decade to put this period of Covid-related instability into context. Land Use Patterns The City of Bremerton’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan outlines the future land use policy direction to accommodate the City’s projected population and employment growth for a 20-year planning time horizon with sufficient areas for housing, businesses, and industry. In this document, the City recognizes its fundamentally interdependent relationship with NBK and seeks, via specific land use goals and policies, not only to “coordinate with Naval Base Kitsap to minimize conflicts between development and naval operations,” but to “ensure the ongoing success of each respective entity, while providing an opportunity to showcase a form of urbanism to the region.” JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 17 The Land Use Element maps the entire city into a series of land use districts intended to guide the character and intensity of development based on these and other goals and policies. The land use districts were then implemented through a citywide zoning update, also adopted in 2016, that aligned the land use regulatory framework – city zoning – with the Comprehensive Plan land use districts. The map in Exhibit 14 illustrates these land use and zoning districts. In several places, a more specific mix of land use policies have been developed – these sub-area plans are detailed further in a following section. In the Urban Growth Areas of the study area, Kitsap County zoning prevails, while City-County agreements have been enacted to ensure urban development consistent with City standards where city services exist. Exhibit 14. Study Area Future Land Use and Zoning Sources: Kitsap County, 2021; City of Bremerton, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. To ascertain how successfully the City of Bremerton has implemented its land use vision, the project team mapped the most current snapshot available of the current land uses found on parcels in the City and UGA, based on the Kitsap County Assessor’s parcel-specific land use coding system (Exhibit 15). JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 18 These codes are updated on a rolling basis, as possible, and do not always reflect an accurate representation of actual land uses. In comparing planned land use and zoning with actual land uses, the following themes emerge:  Bremerton has not achieved the level of industrial development that it has thus far planned for outside of Naval Base Kitsap, especially within the PSIC-B, but also in the industrially zoned Werner Road area of the City.  Much of the City’s high-density residential development has occurred in planned for zones along SR-303 north of the Warren Ave Bridge. These areas lie along the primary northern commuter route to and from NBK and downtown Bremerton.  To date, the mix of land uses along the SR-303 corridor include significant tracts of vacant land located in areas currently designated District Center. District Center zones are intended as “small downtowns” with moderate to high-density mixed uses at their core, transitioning out to single-family areas. Exhibit 15. Study Area Current Land Use Sources: Kitsap County, 2021; City of Bremerton, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 19 City of Bremerton Subarea Plans Overview The 2016 Bremerton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element provides goals and policies – as well as supporting technical analysis – to guide land use decisions for the broad community over the twenty-year planning horizon of the document. However, a number of other, area-specific planning efforts have also been developed to provide additional planning detail to the Comprehensive Plan’s general land use policy framework. These include the following: Downtown Regional Subarea Plan (2007) Bremerton’s core downtown area revitalization is supported by 2007’s Downtown Regional Subarea Plan (DSAP). The plan facilitates the ongoing development of a vibrant, attractive downtown, a critical need for the entire West Sound region. New development is incentivized to place parking underground or within structures, instead of surface lots. Street trees, well- designed public gathering areas, and lighting are planned to create a safe, inviting experience at the street level day and night. Residents should find access to employment, transportation, and basic amenities, along with a concentration of community activities in a more pedestrian friendly environment. The shared border with the nearly 400-acre Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton provides an employment boon to downtown Bremerton and all of Kitsap. The downtown Bremerton / NBK relationship provides a model of intense compact development unmatched in a West Sound region typified by continued sprawl. Eastside Village Subarea Plan (2020) The Eastside Employment Center is a mixed-use co-location of employment activities, residential, and commercial amenities for workers. The center type allows for large scale employment activities that may draw workers from a large geographic area, where workers can also choose to live and shop near work. Nearby living opportunities for employees will reduce commuting as well as employee parking demands. The community will be going through a transition period over the next several years with the change of Harrison Hospital campus use. The implementing regulations of the EC designation are intended to have maximum flexibility for building re-use. Bay Vista Subarea Plan (2009) The Bay Vista Subarea Plan (SAP) establishes the vision and the development standards for this area that acts much like a neighborhood center. The Bay Vista area (formerly known as West Park) began redevelopment in 2009 with supporting a Subarea Plan. The plan includes residential uses to the east and commercial uses adjacent to the Freeway and Kitsap Way. Open Space areas such as the Bay Vista Preserve are focal points of this area. JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 20 East Park Subarea Plan (2006) The East Park Subarea Plan (SAP) establishes the vision and the development standards for this area. The East Park Subarea Plan reflects Bremerton’s vision to continue as the metropolitan center of the West Sound by adding a unique and dense urban neighborhood. East Park has been undergoing residential redevelopment since 2007. Redevelopment consists primarily of single-family lots, but the southern portion of this area can support small commercial activity. Wildlife corridors through the subdivision connect the Madrona forest to the west with the forest creek to the west. Puget Sound Industrial Center – Bremerton (2012) (Formerly South Kitsap Industrial Area) is an industrial employment center that has been identified by the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision2040 Plan as one of eight Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MICs) in the Puget Sound region. This area includes important employment locations that serve both current and long-term regional economic objectives and calls for the provision of infrastructure and services necessary to serve intensive manufacturing and industrial activity. Heavy industrial and manufacturing development that has provisions to protect the surrounding forested area. The area supports green economic development, ensures that future development will result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions versus traditional development, promotes sustainable low-impact development and environmental stewardship. Real Estate Market This section outlines commercial and residential real estate market metrics for the study area, as well as Kitsap County and the central Puget Sound region for context. Real estate metrics – including building inventory, lease rates, vacancy, and absorption – are presented for three different segments: office, retail, and multifamily residential. While recent performance – especially for the retail, and to a lesser extent office, segments – has been profoundly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, a look back at the past decades trends is presented to put this period into context. Absorption is a measure of the difference between space being vacated and being occupied in a given period. When net absorption is positive, more space is becoming occupied than being vacated. Positive absorption can provide evidence of demand for a given type of space, though natural swings can occur when large new construction becomes available. Market Performance in Q2 2021 Exhibit 16 presents a summary snapshot in time of the office, retail, and multifamily residential submarkets as of the second quarter (Q2) of 2021 for the study area (Bremerton and its unincorporated UGAs), as well as for JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 21 Kitsap County and the central Puget Sound region for comparison. The overview summarizes building inventory, new construction, space absorption, vacancy and lease and sales figures for all properties located within the study area for which there is CoStar data. These data indicate a current study area inventory of 2.1 million square feet (sf) of office space, 3.5 million square feet of retail space, and 5,266 units of multifamily residential as of Q2, 2021. No new construction is currently underway in the office and retail segments, but 176 units of multifamily are under construction in the study area (representing almost two-thirds of all units being built countywide at this moment). Exhibit 16. Market Overview - Office, Retail, & Multifamily Residential, Study Area versus County and Region Note: "Region" refers to the Central Puget Sound Region, consisting of Kitsap, Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties. Source: CoStar, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 Office Small net positive absorption of office space in the past 12 months, especially versus the net negative absorption for the County as a whole and considering the study area’s significantly lower office vacancy rate versus the region (5.6% for the study area versus 9.3% region; an office vacancy rate around 10% is considered healthy, while lower vacancy suggests a tighter market), indicates that the office segment has not suffered as badly in Bremerton as it has in many other places due to shift to remote work driven by the Covid pandemic. Nevertheless, lease rates and sale prices per square foot for office space locally remain far below those of the region, and below even the average for Kitsap County, indicating continued softness and stagnant demand in this segment. Location Inventory SF Under Construction SF 12 Mo Net Absorption Vacancy Rate Market Rent / SF Market Sale Price / SF Office Study Area 2.1M 0 3.1K 5.6% $20.87 $166 Kitsap County 5.3M 0 -3.6K 4.7% $22.34 $186 Region 221M 7.5M 4.4M 9.3% $39.09 $473 Retail Study Area 3.5M 0 -22.9K 6.3% $13.46 $143 Kitsap County 13.5M 0 -43.3K 3.5% $16.74 $170 Region 193M 787K -424K 3.0% $26.18 $290 Inventory in Units Under Construction Units 12 Mo Net Absorption Units Vacancy Rate Market Rent / Unit Market Sale Price / Unit Multifamily Study Area 5,266 176 228 6.1% $1,271 $169K Residential Kitsap County 14,312 276 459 3.6% $1,431 $194K Region 477,523 22,242 5,660 7.3% $1,660 $322K JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 22 Retail The retail submarket has fared somewhat worse. With market rents and sale prices at around half the regional average, this segment also underperforms both the region and the County; however, with the Bremerton study area representing around a quarter of the countywide total of retail space inventory, the 6.3% vacancy rate is more than double that of the region, and almost double those of the County. Like the County and region, Bremerton has experienced significant negative net absorption of retail space on average over the last 12 months. This likely reflects the profound challenges that businesses relying on in-person transactions, including bars, restaurants, gyms, and brick and mortar retailers, have faced throughout this pandemic with many businesses failing and / or downsizing. Multifamily Residential The Bremerton study area contains 64% of the County’s multifamily residential inventory as of Q2, 2021, with 5,266 units in 126 buildings. Most of these buildings are older, with prewar construction in the downtown area, and 70s-80’s development elsewhere in the city. Unlike the commercial segments, this segment is delivering new inventory even during the pandemic period with 176 new units under construction and 238 delivered in the last 12 months. The market is tighter in Bremerton that in the region, with only 6.1% vacancy versus 7.3% for the region, but not as tight as the County, with 3.6% vacancy. Market rents are currently $1,271 on average, which is around 76% of the regional average, and market sale prices are $169,000 on average per unit, or around 52% of the regional average. Factors Influencing Market Demand in Bremerton According to the Land Use Element of the City of Bremerton’s Comprehensive Plan, several factors beyond regional and national economic conditions continue to influence market demand for commercial, and to a lesser extent, residential space within the City of Bremerton and areas of its UGAs served by urban infrastructure, despite the recent effect of the pandemic4.  First, many Bremerton properties, both commercial and residential, suffer from weak “curb appeal” due to several factors including building age and deferred maintenance. Where desirable sites exist, many businesses find it challenging to obtain financing for new construction, expansion, or capital costs. Many find that new development is often easier and less expensive in unincorporated areas that also have urban services, or where public sewer and water systems are not required, and road and other standards are considerably lower than in urban areas. Those areas are also more 4 JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 23 likely to have larger vacant parcels available, less expensive land, and occasionally urban services to further stimulate growth.  While the multifamily residential submarket is one brighter spot for Bremerton, many potential infill sites that could represent opportunities for increased density and newer, more desirable inventory are often stymied by a lack of willingness to convert on the part of property owners. Many of Bremerton's oversized lots and other vacant infill sites are being enjoyed by their owners for yard areas, additional off‐street parking, RV storage, or to protect views, for instance. As described in this report, office and retail development and employment growth trends have and continue to significant lag the region, which suggests a need to build a market through coordinated development planning and business attraction strategies. Market Performance Trends 2011-2021 Office After a period of net negative absorption and high office vacancy rates from 2012-2015, the vacancy rate for office stabilized and began to decline substantially at the end of 2018 (Exhibit 17). However, no new deliveries of office space occurred after 2011 with the tightening market reflecting only absorption of existing office inventory. Very low vacancy rates beginning in 2019 persisted through the 2020-current pandemic period, despite a dramatic dip in rents in the second half of 2020. Rents in Q1 and Q2 of this year have bounced back to exceed pre-pandemic levels. Exhibit 17. Vacancy & Lease Rates per SF - Office, 2011-2021 Source: CoStar, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 $20.00 $22.00 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0%2011 Q22011 Q42012 Q22012 Q42013 Q22013 Q42014 Q22014 Q42015 Q22015 Q42016 Q22016 Q42017 Q22017 Q42018 Q22018 Q42019 Q22019 Q42020 Q22020 Q42021 Q2Vacant Percent % Total Office Gross Rent Overall JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 24 Exhibit 18. Absorption, Deliveries, & Vacancy - Office, 2011-2021 Source: CoStar, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 Retail As with office, retail vacancy rates and negative absorption peaked, though to a lesser extent, for a period from 2012-2014 (Exhibit 19). Beginning in 2017, vacancy declined, and rents began to rise above the $10 per square foot NNN mark (still, these rates remained far below the average retail lease rates for the region). Very little new retail inventory was delivered in Bremerton and its UGAs for the 2011-2021 period, with declining vacancies again predominantly due to uptake of existing space. 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% (30,000) (20,000) (10,000) 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2011 Q22011 Q42012 Q22012 Q42013 Q22013 Q42014 Q22014 Q42015 Q22015 Q42016 Q22016 Q42017 Q22017 Q42018 Q22018 Q42019 Q22019 Q42020 Q22020 Q42021 Q2Net Absorption SF Total Deliveries SF Vacant Percent % Total JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 25 Exhibit 19. Vacancy & Lease Rates per SF - Retail, 2011-2021 Source: CoStar, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 Exhibit 20. Absorption, Deliveries, & Vacancy - Retail, 2011-2021 Source: CoStar, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 Multifamily Residential The market for multifamily residential has seen better performance recently than have the commercial segments with 579 of 799 units delivered in the decade coming onto the market after 2016. Vacancy rates remained at a relatively healthy 5.5%-6.5% level for that period, and average asking rents have climbed steadily to a high of $1,270 in Q2 of this year. Vacancy rates $8.00 $8.50 $9.00 $9.50 $10.00 $10.50 $11.00 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0%2011 Q22011 Q42012 Q22012 Q42013 Q22013 Q42014 Q22014 Q42015 Q22015 Q42016 Q22016 Q42017 Q22017 Q42018 Q22018 Q42019 Q22019 Q42020 Q22020 Q42021 Q2Vacant Percent % Total NNN Rent Overall 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% (60,000) (40,000) (20,000) 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 2011 Q22011 Q42012 Q22012 Q42013 Q22013 Q42014 Q22014 Q42015 Q22015 Q42016 Q22016 Q42017 Q22017 Q42018 Q22018 Q42019 Q22019 Q42020 Q22020 Q42021 Q2Net Absorption SF Total Deliveries SF Vacant Percent % Total JCTP: Economic and Market Profile May 3, 2021 Page 26 peaked briefly from 6% in Q2 of 2020 to 10.3% in Q3 of 2020 but have since recovered. Exhibit 21. Vacancy & Lease Rates per Unit – Multifamily Residential, 2011-2021 Source: CoStar, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 Exhibit 22. Absorption, Deliveries, & Vacancy – Multifamily Residential, 2011-2021 Source: CoStar, 2021; Community Attributes, 2021 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 2.5% 3.5% 4.5% 5.5% 6.5% 7.5% 8.5% 9.5% 10.5% 11.5%2011 Q22011 Q42012 Q22012 Q42013 Q22013 Q42014 Q22014 Q42015 Q22015 Q42016 Q22016 Q42017 Q22017 Q42018 Q22018 Q42019 Q22019 Q42020 Q22020 Q42021 Q2Vacancy Percent Asking Rent Per Unit 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% (60) (40) (20) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 2011 Q22011 Q42012 Q22012 Q42013 Q22013 Q42014 Q22014 Q42015 Q22015 Q42016 Q22016 Q42017 Q22017 Q42018 Q22018 Q42019 Q22019 Q42020 Q22020 Q42021 Q2Absorption Units Deliveries Units Vacancy Percent Appendix G Future No Build Forecasting Memo Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan: Model Validation and Future Forecasts Prepared for: City of Bremerton May 2021 TC20-0011 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................... 1 Base Year Model Update and Validation .................................................................................................................................... 4 Future Year Model Land Use Update ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Future Year Forecast ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Daily Inbound Trips by Mode to NBK-BR ................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 2. Model Validation Screenlines ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. 2019 to 2050 Volume Difference Plot .................................................................................................................... 10 List of Tables Table 1. PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution at NBK-BR .............................................................................................................. 3 Table 2. PM Peak Hour Screenline Volumes .............................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3. Initial Model Validation Results ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 4. Final Validation Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 5. Household Forecasts .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 6. Employment Forecasts ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 | P a g e Introduction The City of Bremerton Travel Demand Model was updated to help develop future peak hour intersection forecasts for the City’s Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan. This report documents how the base year model was updated and validated to 2019 conditions and how the future year scenario was updated from 2040 to 2050 conditions. A major effort as part of this update was re-estimating the peak hour trip generation and access gate distribution for travel associated with the Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton (NBK-BR, or the Base). The City’s model is a 3-step model (trip generation, trip distribution, and assignment) that estimates vehicle demand during the PM peak hour, which generally occurs between 3:30 and 4:30pm due to NBK- BR travel. Peak hour vehicle-trip demand is estimated in a separate spreadsheet tool using land use estimates (single family and multi-family households and jobs across eight categories) by traffic analysis zone (TAZ). The City’s model is run using Visum software, version 18.02-12. Naval Base Kitsap – Bremerton Trip Generation There are seven entry locations that provide access to NBK-BR and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. Four of these gates are primarily for vehicular access and three are primarily for pedestrian access. The City and NBK-BR provided daily inbound counts by mode for these access points. The vehicle counts are averaged from data collected between March and July 2014 (excluding two weeks when certain gates were closed). The pedestrian counts are based on a three-day average with an unknown observation date. The gate locations and count data are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Daily Inbound Trips by Mode to NBK-BR 2 | P a g e Based on a conversation with NBK-BR personnel, the observed daily inbound trips were confirmed to be consistent with the expected number of daily trips entering the facilities. Even though the count data is several years old, there has not been a significant change in Base employment, so the volumes are still consistent with demand in 2019. The following information was provided by NBK-BR: • The Base employs between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals: 14,000 civilians, 1,000 military personnel, 3,000 sailors per carrier in port, and 2,000 contractors. • On an average weekday, 7% of workers are on leave and 1,000 are working remotely, so the daily number of workers commuting to base would be between 17,600 and 20,400, • The count data was collected when only a single carrier was in port and thus the Montgomery gate was closed to vehicle access. • Approximately 1,500 employees arrive via Kitsap Transit Worker-Driver buses and would be counted as vehicle trips, not pedestrian trips. • Approximately 75% of the pedestrian trips are assumed to drive and park in Downtown Bremerton in off-street parking lots or on City streets before walking onto the Base. • The remaining 25% of pedestrian trips are assumed to use transit and other travel modes that do not require parking nearby (bicycling, local transit, Port Orchard Foot Ferries, and Washington State Ferries). As shown in Figure 1, there are over 18,000 daily inbound trips, which is consistent with an assumed daily population on Base of around 17,600 people when one carrier is in port. There are over 7,000 inbound trips at the Charleston and Naval gates, and with 5,000 parking spaces on Base, this inbound total is reasonable given that there are three work shifts each day (day, swing, and graveyard). Of the 7,600 people that are assumed to park off-site, only 1,000 would be able to use the parking garage at 4th Street & Park Avenue. The remaining would be using other available off-street lots or parking on City streets. The volume and distribution of outbound trips was assumed to be consistent with the inbound trips since no data was collected on outbound trips at the gates. The City’s model estimates not only the vehicle trips that are driving directly onto Base but also those trips that park in Downtown Bremerton and walk onto Base. The zonal connectors in the model for these park- and-walk trips are located throughout the downtown area where there is available parking. Since no specific data was available based on the mode of arrival for the pedestrian trips, the percentage of park- and-walk trips at each gate was estimated using professional judgment based on the location of nearby parking lots and proximity to nearby transit facilities. The PM peak hour distribution of trips was initially estimated using count data from the 2013 Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety Study: NBK Bremerton, which showed that 5% of daily inbound NBK-BR trips and 20% of daily outbound trips occur during the PM peak hour. These estimates were then refined to be consistent with peak hour intersection counts collected in 2018 for the 6th and 11th St Corridor Feasibility Study. 3 | P a g e The following adjustments were incorporated into the PM peak hour calculations for NBK-BR: • The overall trip generation was increased by 15% to account for a second carrier being in port (an increase in employees from 20,000 to 23,000), and the additional trips were assumed to be vehicle trips using the Charleston, Montgomery (outbound only), and Naval gates. • The Missouri gate vehicular demand was tripled to match the intersection count volumes. • The Burwell gate pedestrian demand was doubled to match observed pedestrian volumes at the tunnel portal on SR 304. • The State gate pedestrian demand was also doubled to be consistent with the adjustment at the Burwell gate. • Worker-driver buses were added as vehicle trips at the Main/Bremerton gate. The final distribution of inbound and outbound PM peak hour trips assumed in the 2019 model is shown below in Table 1. The total number of trips is only 2% higher than the assumptions in the original version of the model, but the distribution is significantly different. There are approximately 1,500 fewer vehicle trips across the Charleston, Montgomery, and Naval gates combined and 1,600 more park-and-walk trips across the Naval, State, and Main gates combined. Table 1. PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution at NBK-BR Gate Vehicle Trips Pedestrian Trips Total Trips Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Missouri 135 540 675 0 0 0 675 Charleston 300 800 1,100 10 40 50 1,150 Montgomery 0 500 500 0 0 0 500 Naval 200 700 900 20 80 100 1,000 State 0 0 0 350 1,400 1,750 1,750 Burwell 0 0 0 250 1,000 1,250 1,250 Main/Bremerton 0 10 10 50 200 250 260 Total 635 2,550 3,185 680 2,720 3,400 6,585 The data from the 2013 study and the 2018 traffic counts suggest that the AM peak hour trip generation and gate distribution is similar to the PM peak hour but reversed, with 20% inbound and 5% outbound. If necessary, the inbound and outbound trips in Table 1 could be switched and used as an estimate for the morning peak hour demand. 4 | P a g e Base Year Model Update and Validation The City’s model was validated to 2019 PM peak hour conditions at seven screenlines across the model area. These are imaginary boundaries drawn across the street network to determine whether the model’s depiction of volumes moving across the City are consistent with observed volumes. The locations of the screenlines, each of which contains 2-3 individual count locations, are shown in the Figure 2. Figure 2. Model Validation Screenlines 5 | P a g e Count data along the screenlines was collected from several different sources: • 2017-2018 peak hour intersection counts from previous traffic studies • 2019 daily traffic volumes provided by WSDOT’s Traffic Geoportal • 2021 roadway segment counts collected in January 2021 for this study • Vehicle capacities for WSF vessels serving the Bremerton ferry terminal Some adjustments were made to the raw count data. Based on count data from WSDOT’s permanent traffic recorders (PTR) on SR 3 and SR 16, PM peak hour volumes were assumed to be 8% of the daily totals.. The 2021 counts were increased by a factor of 1.50 to account for reductions in traffic volumes due to stay-at-home restrictions in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The project team developed this adjustment factor to be applied to all count data collected in 2021 for this project. Table 2 shows the final PM peak hour volumes used for validation and the source for each. Table 2. PM Peak Hour Screenline Volumes # Screenline Location Source Volume 1 South of Austin Dr SR 3 2019 WSDOT ADT 5,200 Kitsap Way 2021 Tube Count 1,270 2 Port Washington Narrows SR 303 2018 Intersection Count 3,360 Manette Bridge 2018 Intersection Count 1,170 3 West of SR 303 SR 304 2018 Intersection Count 1,280 6th St 2018 Intersection Count 1,550 11th St 2018 Intersection Count 2,270 4 East of SR 303 SR 304 2018 Intersection Count 870 6th St 2018 Intersection Count 1,040 11th St 2018 Intersection Count 1,040 5 South of B St SR 3 2019 WSDOT ADT 4,160 Charleston Blvd 2017 Intersection Count 2,840 6 Ferry Terminal WSF Ferry WSF Ferry Capacity 230 7 North of Riddell Rd Pine Road 2021 Tube Count 710 SR 303 2018 Intersection Count 2,740 Ilahee Road 2021 Tube Count 510 The version of the City’s model that was provided for this project used an automatic matrix adjustment process that factored the 2019 volume demand matrix to better match the count data that was used for validation. This adjustment step was removed for this project, and the model was instead calibrated by reviewing land use inputs, updating trip generation rates, verifying posted speed limits and capacities of the roadway network links, and adjusting the locations where traffic loads onto the network from the 6 | P a g e zonal connectors. This approach is more consistent with the initial model input parameters and maintains these assumptions between the base and future scenarios. An error in the model script related to feedback loop averaging was also corrected. The initial validation results for the 2019 scenario are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Initial Model Validation Results Screenline Count Volume Model Volume Volume Difference Percent Difference 1. South of Austin Dr. 6,470 6,540 70 1% 2. Port Washington Narrows 4,530 5,580 1,050 23% 3. West of SR 303 5,100 5,550 450 9% 4. East of SR 303 2,950 3,120 170 6% 5. South of B St 7,000 6,860 -140 -2% 6. Ferry Terminal 230 710 480 209% 7. North of Riddell Rd 3,960 3,630 -330 -8% The initial results show that the model is overestimating the existing demand crossing the Port Washington Narrows during the PM peak hour. The model was also mis-assigning trips that were parking at a garage near the ferry terminal with trips onto the ferry. Otherwise, all other screenlines are within 10% of the PM peak hour count volumes, which is deemed an acceptable level of difference. The following calibration adjustments were made to improve the model’s validation: • Updated the land use in zone 199 to 769 households per the City’s direction. • Updated the land use at NBK-BR (zone 132) to zero households and 23,000 military jobs, and updated the trip generation and trip distribution assumptions per the revised assumptions described above. • Removed the extra trips at the ferry terminal associated with a nearby parking garage. • Incorporated a trip distribution adjustment factor to reduce the number of trips crossing the Port Washington Narrows. • Modified the roadway network east of SR 303 and north of 11th Street to minimize trips cutting through the neighborhood to avoid congestion on SR 303. • Modified the roadway speeds in Downtown Bremerton to improve the distribution of trips on SR 304, 6th Street, and 11th Street to be consistent with the existing volume distribution. • Removed the pre-determined loading factors on zonal connectors in downtown Bremerton to improve how trips are assigned to the network. The final validation results after incorporating these changes are shown in Table 4. The volume of trips crossing the Port Washington Narrows is now only 2% higher than the count volume, and the volume at the ferry terminal is consistent with two full vessels – one arriving and one departing – during the 7 | P a g e afternoon peak hour. All but one screenline is within 5% of the count volume. Based on the results in the table, the 2019 model is considered validated within the study area for this project. All of the calibration adjustments described above were incorporated into the future year scenario. Table 4. Final Validation Results Screenline Count Volume Model Volume Volume Difference Percent Difference 1. South of Austin Dr. 6,470 6,510 40 1% 2. Port Washington Narrows 4,530 4,630 100 2% 3. West of SR 303 5,100 4,890 -210 -4% 4. East of SR 303 2,950 2,910 -40 -1% 5. South of B St 7,000 6,720 -280 -4% 6. Ferry Terminal 230 230 0 0% 7. North of Riddell Rd 3,960 3,660 -300 -8% Future Year Model Land Use Update The future year model’s land use was updated from 2040 to reflect 2050 estimates using the following methodology: 1. Increase the land use growth to match draft 2050 targets provided by PSRC within the City. 2. Extrapolate to 2050 using the 2019 and 2040 land use data for areas outside the City. 3. Modify the growth estimates in certain zones based on the City’s direction. 4. Reallocate the growth in the remaining zones to maintain citywide targets. PSRC is in the process of finalizing 2050 land use in the region. However, it was able to provide the City and project team draft 2050 growth targets for the City of Bremerton and Kitsap County with the following limitations. PSRC stated the following: In developing VISION 2050, PSRC developed future year growth patterns consistent with the policies of the final Regional Growth Strategy. This initial representation will be refined as jurisdictions begin the next round of growth target and comprehensive plan updates as required under the Growth Management Act (GMA), a process that will continue through mid-2024. PSRC is choosing not to publish an updated version of its land use forecast product, the Land Use Vision (LUV), until after the first major round of implementation work, the GMA growth target updates, are complete. This forecast is an initial, and one possible, version of a growth pattern that meet’s VISION 2050’s policy objectives. It was used for analysis of the Regional Growth Strategy. It is not reflective of adopted GMA growth targets as these are currently under development. (PSRC, February 2021) 8 | P a g e Table 5 and Table 6 show the household and employment estimates for the model for 2019, 2040, and 2050. Separate totals are shown for the City of Bremerton and the remaining areas of unincorporated Kitsap County. Within the City, the land use growth between 2019 and 2040 was increased to match the draft 2050 citywide targets provided by PSRC: 27,500 households and 55,500 jobs. The updated household target requires slightly higher average annual growth to meet the future year target: 1.9% per year instead of 1.8% per year. The updated jobs target is lower than the previously assumed total in 2040, so the annual growth decreases from 1.8% per year to 1.1% per year. Outside of the City, the growth rates between 2019 and 2040 were maintained to extrapolate out to 2050. Table 5. Household Forecasts Area 2019 2040 2019-2040 Growth 2019-2040 % per Year 2050 2019-2050 Growth 2019-2050 % per Year Bremerton 17,300 24,000 6,700 1.8% 27,500 10,200 1.9% Unincorporated 6,200 8,300 2,100 1.6% 9,400 3,200 1.7% Model Total 23,500 32,300 8,800 1.8% 36,900 13,400 1.8% Table 6. Employment Forecasts Area 2019 2040 2019-2040 Growth 2019-2040 % per Year 2050 2019-2050 Growth 2019-2050 % per Year Bremerton 41,000 56,300 15,300 1.8% 55,500 14,500 1.1% Unincorporated 3,600 5,300 1,700 2.2% 6,200 2,600 2.3% Model Total 44,600 61,600 17,000 1.8% 61,700 17,100 1.2% The initial 2050 zonal land use estimates were provided to the City for review, and the following changes were incorporated per the City’s direction. The source or justification for each is noted parenthetically. • 226 new households and 240 new jobs in zone 119 (Bay Vista EIS) • 200 new military jobs in zone 132 (NBK-BR) • 820 new households in zone 141 (West Hills development) • 480 new households and 298 new jobs in zones 151, 179, 185, and 191 (Gorst EIS) • 6,500 new jobs in zones 184, 206, 208, and 213 (PSIC/SKIA EIS) • 1,500 new jobs in zone 232 (PSIC/SKIA EIS) • 90 new households in zone 339 (limitations on sewer capacity) • 34 new households in zone 369 (current development trends) • 1,750 new households and 81 less jobs in zones 370-372 and 374-376 (Eastside Village EIS) • No job growth in zone 387 (currently City’s watershed and golf course) • 10 new jobs in zone 402 (increase in jobs is likely) • 130 new households and no job loss in zone 406 (recent rezone and job decrease is unlikely) 9 | P a g e After incorporating the above adjustments to the 2050 land use forecast, the growth in households and jobs in the remaining zones throughout the City were proportionally adjusted to maintain the citywide control totals. The distribution of households and jobs by type in each zone was assumed to be similar to the distributions in the 2040 forecast. Future Year Forecast The 2050 scenario assumes an approximate 60% increase in households and a 40% increase in employment from the 2019 scenario in the model. The only network improvement project is a road diet on Naval Avenue that reduces the number of travel lanes from four to two between 1st Street and 11th Street. After reviewing initial results from the future year scenario, the trip distribution adjustment factor was modified to reduce the growth in trips across the Port Washington Narrows to a level consistent with the growth in travel citywide. The model was overestimating the available capacity on the bridges resulting in unreasonably high forecasts. The demand for travel on these two bridges is driven by household growth to the north of the Narrows and job growth to the south. The model estimates a 40% increase in PM peak hour vehicle trips within the City of Bremerton and nearby unincorporated areas of Kitsap County and a slight increase in the percentage of trips that remain within this area (due to an improved jobs-housing balance). A difference plot showing the relative change in peak hour trips between the 2019 and 2050 scenarios is shown in Figure 3. The changes in model volumes at the study intersections were provided to the project team to develop 2050 forecasts. 10 | P a g e Figure 3. 2019 to 2050 Volume Difference Plot Appendix H Screening and Evaluation Methodology Memo 719 2ND AVENUE, SUITE 200 | SEATTLE, WA 98104 | P 206.394.3700 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: July 16, 2021 TO: Katie Ketterer, City of Bremerton FROM: Alex Atchison, PE, PTOE SUBJECT: Screening and Evaluation Methodology CC: Michael Horntvedt PROJECT NUMBER: 554-1896-176 PROJECT NAME: Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to present the approach to screening, evaluating, and ranking potential improvements for the JCTP project. SCREENING AND EVALUATION PROCESS Potential alternatives will be developed based on findings from the public survey; traffic analysis; past input from local clubs, neighborhoods, and studies; outcome of Workshop #1; and input from the Community Sounding Board. Following development of potential alternatives, a multi-step screening process is proposed to identify, screen, evaluate and rank potential improvements. This process will be guided by the study goals and includes these steps: 1. Screen strategies for feasibility 2. Combine improvements into alternative packages 3. Prioritize study goals relative to each other. 4. Evaluate alternative package effectiveness using performance measures. 5. Determine how performance measures will be scored Step 1 – Screen alternatives for feasibility This first level screening will be a qualitative evaluation that measures the feasibility of proposed alternatives. The alternatives will be screened with the following metrics: 1. Is it consistent with goals of the study? 2. Is it feasible (e.g City management support, neighborhood support, supports base operations (on the Base), does it seem cost effective? 3. Has is it been found to be ineffective by a previous study or plan? Step 2 - Combine improvements into alternative packages Following the feasibility screening, proposed improvements will be combined into different alternative packages. The alternative packages will be developed based on input from the Study Team, with guidance from the Community Sounding Board. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Screening and Evaluation Methodology 2 July 16, 2021 Step 3 – Prioritize study goals relative to each other The study goals will be discussed at the second CSB meeting, scheduled for July 2021. Draft study goals include the following:  Travel Times and Reliability: Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make them more predictable.  Mobility: Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods.  Safety: Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes  Active Transportation: improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone.  Economic Vitality: Project has the potential to improve economic investment in 4 categories (traffic, transit, pedestrian/bicycle, and aesthetic enhancements).  Parking: Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user-friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods. Following final definition of the study goals, the study team will use input from the Community Sounding Board (CSB) to prioritize the study goals. The study team will use a methodology called “forced-choice pair comparison” (example table in Exhibit 1) a common tool for developing group priorities. The purpose of this step is to allow the Community Sounding Board to determine which study goals are most important in evaluating the effectiveness of modeled scenarios. Each Community Sounding Board member will be provided with a table to readily make pair-wise comparisons between study goals to decide which one is more important (or to decide both are equally important) in terms of the study purpose, their organization’s priorities, and performance of the transportation system (as well as any other considerations they thought were important). The study team will share the public survey results with the CSB consider as they prioritize the study goals. The study team will compile the pair-wise comparisons and average them by goal area to create a group weighting. Two criteria, in addition to those listed above, will also be evaluated, but not included in the pair-wise comparison, as they are a qualitative assessment of the how the goals above work together. The two additional study goals include the following:  Base Accessibility: Improve Base accessibility for NBK-BR workers.  Livability: Improve overall livability for Bremerton residents. These two study goals will be evaluated using a qualitative assessment of combinations of other metrics evaluated above. For example, a project that removes parking near base and improve worker driver program may be neutral change for Base Accessibility but a positive change for Livability. A project that relocates parking for workers outside of downtown and provide a shuttle service to downtown would have a positive change on both Base Accessibility and Livability. Exhibit 1: Example of “forced-choice pair comparison” exercise to develop study goal priorities A B C D E F Travel Time ReliablityMobilitySafety Active TransportationEconomic VitalityParkingA Travel Times and Reliability: Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make them more predictable A A A A A/E A 5.5 26% B Mobility: Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods B B D E B 3 14% C Safety: Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes C C/D C/E C 3 14% D Active Transportation: improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone D E E/F 2.5 12% E Economic Vitality: Project has the potential to improve economic investment in 4 categories (traffic, transit, pedestrian/bicycle, and aesthetic enhancements) E E 5.5 26% F Parking: Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user-friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods F 1.5 7% 21 100% SUBTOTALS PrioritiesTotal CountStudy Goals TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) City of Bremerton 554-1896-176 Screening and Evaluation Methodology 4 July 16, 2021 Step 4 – Evaluate alternative package effectiveness using performance measures. The study team proposed the following performance measures to evaluate each alternative’s ability to meet the goals of the study. These performance measures will be evaluated using a mostly quantitative analysis and are shown in Exhibit 2. The scoring of alternatives will be independent of the pair-wise comparison and weighting of criteria. Exhibit 2 also illustrates analysis methods proposed to evaluate the effectiveness of the performance measures. Step 5 – Determine how performance measures will be scored. The study team will evaluate and score the alternatives based on several elements, as described below. 1. For each performance measure, the alternatives will be scored on a range from -1 to +3. In general, the scores are proposed to follow these general parameters: o Score of -1: Project is expected to make conditions worse than the 2050 No Build o Score of +1: Project does not change conditions compared to 2050 No Build o Score of +2: Project improves conditions compared to 2050 No Build (range varies depending on study goal) o Score of+ 3: Project creates even greater improvements compared to 2050 No Build (range varies depending on study goal) Exhibit 3 illustrates the specific scores for each performance measure. 2. Several of the study goals include more than one performance measure. A score will be assigned to each performance measure and then the individual scores will be rolled up into one overall score for the study goal area. For example, the study goal area of “improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes” includes two performance measures: 1) number of overall crashes 2) number of serious injury and fatal crashes. Each scenario’s score for these two measures will be rolled up to create a performance score for the goal. 3. Apply criteria weighting developed in Step Three (if applicable) to the goal area effectiveness score described above, yielding the overall performance score. Appendix I First Level Screening Results Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan First Level Screening # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Is it consistent with the study goals?Is it feasible?Is it ineffective according to previous studies?First Level Screening ResultNew / Expanded Parking PC1 Add park-and-ride in West Bremerton and establish frequent shuttle service between P&R and NBK-BR Covered by PC6, PC7, T8 N/A N/A N/A FAIL PC2 Added parking outside of downtown with frequent shuttle service Covered by PC6, PC7, PC 11, T8 N/A N/A N/A FAIL PC3 Add more parking in Port Orchard and increase foot-ferry frequency for Port Orchard and Annapolis Assume this occurs as part of a Kitsap Transit and/or Port Orchard project. Need to consider changes to Kitsap foot ferry frequency to accommodate higher demand.Yes Yes No PASS PC4 Add capacity at McWilliams Park & Ride Needs to consider higher frequency transit (BRT) and SR 303 Corridor Study projects.Yes Yes No PASS PC5 Partner with Port of Bremerton to provide parking and run shuttles from PSIC Yes Yes No PASS PC6 Park & Ride near SR 3/Kitsap Way interchange (Austin Dr or Auto Center Dr)Input from Kitsap Transit regarding # of stalls needed.Yes Yes No PASS PC7 Park & Ride near SR 3/Loxie Eagans interchange (West Hills)Input from Kitsap Transit regarding # of stalls needed.No Yes No FAIL PC8 Add park-and-ride locations outside of Downtown Covered by PC6, PC7, PC 11 N/A N/A N/A FAIL PC9 Park-and-Ride near downtown similar to Gateway No Yes Yes FAIL PC10 Park-and-Ride at Port Repeat of PC11 N/A N/A N/A FAIL PC11 Park & Ride in Port Orchard Covered by PC3 N/A N/A N/A FAIL PC12 Expand parking through public/private partnerships. New downtown parking should be mixed-use with active street-level uses. This assumes parking lots would be constructed to include retail, living, or business space on some levels and parking on others.Yes Yes No PASS PC13 4th and 5th between Park and 303; make one way with angled parking and improve access management Yes Yes No PASS PC14 Add large parking garage to block between Burwell and 4th, from Warren to Park Parking lot would be sized to accommodate traffic growth into downtown. Parking is allowed by zoning at this location. This is adjacent to Burwell tunnel, 5 owners to negotiate with and some vacant, both Fed and Washington Ave would fit here, provides easy access to east end of the base. Include a K&R too. Yes Yes No PASS PC15 Increase the number of multi-level parking structures (not single-level lots)Covered by PC14 N/A N/A N/A FAIL PC16 Adding more affordable parking downtown Reducing cost could increase demand for parking. Yes Yes No PASS PC17 Park & Ride along SR 3 near Port of Bremerton (south end near SW Lake Flora Rd or north end near Bree Dr or Victory Dr SW)Yes Yes No PASS Capacity Projects (changes in lanes, signals, intersection control, etc.) C1 Improve SR 3/Kitsap Way interchange: update signals or replace with roundabouts at ramp terminals Yes Yes No PASS C2 Convert signals at SR 3/Loxie Eagans interchange to roundabouts Yes Yes No PASS C3 Design Washington Avenue/Manette Bridge roundabout to accommodate Year 2050 growth Add northbound right-turn slip lane to reduce v/c ratios for northbound approach. A meter on the southbound approach operates well above v/c of 1.0 Yes No No FAIL C4 Replace all City signals with RABs in downtown No No No FAIL C5 Access management on Kitsap Way between Corbett Dr and Oyster Bay Access management includes ideas like combining multiple driveway access points into one with controlled entry/exit onto main arterial. Yes Yes No PASS C6 Add westbound lane on Kitsap Way bewteen west of 11th Street and National Ave and add a second left-turn lane at National Ave/Kitsap Way intersection Yes Yes No PASS C7 Add westbound business access transit (BAT) lane along Kitsap Way (11th St to SR 3)Yes Yes No PASS C8 Add northbound right-turn pocket at Naval Ave/Burwell St that is being removed as part of the Naval Ave road diet project Proposed Naval Ave road diet project will degrade traffic operations Yes Yes No PASS C9 Add roundabouts at Naval Ave/Burwell St, State St/Burwell St, Chester St/Burwell St, and Warren Ave/Burwell St Yes Yes No PASS C10 Reconfigure Callow Ave/Burwell St intersection to be grade-separated Grade-separated intersection of South Center Blvd/Klickitat as an example Yes Yes No PASS C11 Build road/ramps directly from SR 3 to Charleston Gate Yes No No FAIL C12 Add capacity on SR 3, especially in southbound direction, as recommended in the SR 16 Tacoma Narrows Bridge to SR 3 Congestion Study.Yes Yes No PASS C13 Build a bypass to PSIC Location TBD based on conversation at Workshop #2.Yes Yes No PASS C14 Add capacity at SR 3/SR 304 interchange, including a SR 3 SB off-ramp to SR 304 Yes No No FAIL C15 Reversible lane along SR 3 Reversible lanes involve electronic control with barrier separation of the reversible lane or crews need to move barriers/cones.Yes Yes No PASS C16 Add northbound HOV lane along SR 304 from SR NB Off-Ramp merge to Farragut St intersection Could be managed as HOV during peak hours only.Yes Yes No PASS C17 Dedicated transit lane along Kitsap Way Repeat of C7 N/A N/A N/A FAIL C18 Dedicated transit lane through Gorst (must be paired with enforcement)Yes Yes No PASS C19 BAT lanes or dedicated center lanes along future BRT corridor SR 303 Repeat of C29 N/A N/A N/A FAIL C20 Change signal timing to include all-way pedestrian phase at State/Burwell and Park/Burwell intersections Yes Yes No PASS C21 Add leading pedestrian intervals to all signals A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. Yes Yes No PASS C22 Dedicated transit road from SR 3 to downtown Yes No No FAIL C23 Transit signal priority (TSP) at every signalized intersection along transit corridors Transit signal priority provides opportunity for buses to extend the length of green time at a traffic signal so the bus doesn't have to stop. This improves bus travel time and reliability. Yes Yes No PASS C24 Road diets on 6th St and 11th St to provide bike facilities A road diet includes the repurposing of underused travel lanes and/or parking to provide bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks with buffer, and transit improvements. It is intended to more efficiently use the roadway space. Yes Yes No PASS C25 Ramp meters on all on-ramps from Kitsap Way, Loxie Eagans, and SR 304 Yes Yes No PASS C26 Traffic Management Center This concept provides the city with additional flexibility to modify notification signs about closures, dynamic speed signs if used (none identified at the point), and provide travel time information via vms. Yes Yes No PASS C27 Variable message signs Variable message signs are typically controlled at a station and can include notifications to the traveling public as needed. Locations would be dependent on the parking strategies. Could have signs along SR 3 to indicate parking availability at new remote parking, could have them on Charleston to indicate when downtown parking is full or show number of spaces. Yes Yes No PASS C28 Incident response on SR 3 Adding service trucks along SR 3 that could respond to crashes or incidents and decrease the amount of time a lane is partially blocked or closed. Yes Yes No PASS C29 Build projects proposed in SR 303 study All analysis completed as part of the SR 303 Corridor study through the year 2040 Yes Yes No PASS Widen Warren Avenue Bridge to include 10’ sidewalks on both sides Yes Yes No PASS Sidewalks at both north and south ends that are forward-compatible with long-term plan Yes Yes No PASS Active transportation facility to connect to Lebo Boulevard on the north side of the bridge Yes Yes No PASS Provide wayfinding for active transportation Yes Yes No PASS Bicycle facilities south of the bridge between SR 303 and Park Avenue Yes Yes No PASS Bicycle facilities on Almira Drive from Sylvan Way to NE Riddell Road Yes Yes No PASS Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing north of Dibb Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island Yes Yes No PASS Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing between 6th Street and 11th Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon signal and pedestrian refuge island Yes Yes No PASS Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing north of Pearl Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island Yes Yes No PASS Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing between Hollis Street and NE Riddell Road and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island Yes Yes No PASS Update lane striping along SR 303 to delineate active transportation facilities Yes Yes No PASS Improve striping along Callahan Drive tunnel to show active transportation facility Yes Yes No PASS Install pedestrian crossing treatment at 4th Street and 5th Stree Yes Yes No PASS Bicycle facilities from Callahan Drive to Cherry Avenue using lower Wheaton Way, Spruce Avenue, and E 30th Street Yes Yes No PASS Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing at Sheridan Road and Spruce Avenue Yes Yes No PASS Bicycle facilities on Callahan Drive from SR 303 to lower Wheaton Way using existing tunnel under SR 303 Yes Yes No PASS 1 of 5 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan First Level Screening # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Is it consistent with the study goals?Is it feasible?Is it ineffective according to previous studies?First Level Screening ResultProvide 10' wide sidewalks at the following locations: SR 303 to Almira Drive using NE 32nd Street through Old East Bremerton High School, connecting near Dibb Street Wheaton Way Transit Center to Pine Road NE using NE Normandy Drive or NE Roswell Drive to access Clogston Avenue NE Yes Yes No PASS Construct a paved active transportation facility from Cherry Avenue to Almira Drive Yes Yes No PASS Bicycle facilities on Almira Drive from Cherry Avenue to Sylvan Way Yes Yes No PASS Complete sidewalk connection from south end of Warren Ave Bridge to existing sidewalk south of 18th Street Yes Yes No PASS Widen sidewalk to 10’ on west side of SR 303 between 13th Street and Warren Avenue Bridge Yes Yes No PASS Construct a tunnel under SR 303 for an active transportation undercrossing, connecting Olympic College to east side of SR 303 Yes Yes No PASS Active transportation facilities on 18th Street through Olympic College to Broadway Avenue Yes Yes No PASS C30 Roadway improvements to get employees out of NBK and onto SR 3 SB Covered by C12, C14, C16 N/A N/A N/A FAIL C31 Signalize intersections near proposed Park & Rides Consider need for full signal or possibly providing a pedestrian signal.Yes Yes No PASS C32 Add roadway capacity along Burwell St Adding roadway capacity from Warren Ave to Hewitt would require widening of the road and ROW purchase or removal of parking during peak periods.Yes Yes No PASS C33 Widen or add road through Gorst To be considered as part of Gorst project.Yes Yes No PASS C34 Build bridge to Port Orchard No No No FAIL C35 Adaptive signal timing at all signalized intersections Yes Yes No PASS C36 Improve traffic flow outside shipyard Covered by C8, C9, C10, C11, C32 N/A N/A N/A FAIL C37 Building a bridge that connect SR 3 to SR 16 Yes No No FAIL C38 Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan Yes Yes No PASS C39 Replace signals with roundabouts along Kitsap Way between Shorewood Dr and National Ave RABs work for operations along Kitsap Way except at Kitsap/Marine Dr and Kitsap/11th Yes Yes No PASS Projects on Base B1 Move some Base operations (e.g. NEX) to Bangor No No No FAIL B2 Stagger shipyard shifts, especially with ferry arrivals No No No FAIL B3 Improve gate progression to decrease queuing in the AM peak by adding a lane at gate(s) Add lanes at Charleston, Naval, and Montgomery gates. Adding a lane at the gate(s) would also require another guard for id check.Yes Yes No PASS B4 Move gates further into the Base to reduce queuing on City streets Yes Yes No PASS B5 Add commuter parking on Base Repeat of B7 N/A N/A N/A FAIL B6 More parking at NBK-BR Repeat of B7 N/A N/A N/A FAIL B7 Add parking on Base. Relocate fence west of NBK-BR parking lot to the east and build up the parking lot. Provide shuttle along 1st to loop onto Burwell Yes Yes No PASS B8 Enhance access to Base from the West to reduce congestion in Downtown Covered by C11, C14 N/A N/A N/A FAIL B9 Explore enhanced use lease to add private parking garages on base Enhance use lease is a program that allows private companies to lease land on base to operate a parking facility. Yes Yes No PASS B10 Create new entry points at NBK-BR for vehicles and peds Yes Yes No PASS B11 Further limit vehicle access entry points to base Yes Yes No PASS B12 Revise State St gate to remove ped/vehicle conflicts Repeat of AT42 N/A N/A N/A FAIL B13 Increase parking for shipyard employees specifically Covered by B7, B9 N/A N/A N/A FAIL B14 Stagger shipyard employee shifts to reduce traffic congestion Repeat of B2 N/A N/A N/A FAIL B15 Expand service area of shipyard shuttle buses (Gorst, Port Orchard, etc.)Yes Yes No PASS B16 Allow bikes in shipyard Yes Yes No PASS B17 Relocate fence west of NBK-BR parking lot to the east and build up the parking lot. Provide shuttle along 1st to loop onto Burwell Repeat of B7 N/A N/A N/A FAIL B18 Open Montgomery gate in both directions during peak hours.Yes Yes No PASS Transit Service / Frequency T1 Allow KT to run bus routes onto the base (excluding the PSNS&IMF)This occurred prior to 9-11 Yes No No FAIL T2 Concentrate worker/driver routes along main corridors No Yes No FAIL T3 Ferry service from West Seattle No No No FAIL T4 Change worker/driver to pick up and drop off at same point to accommodate non-Base employees Yes Yes No PASS T5 Dedicated transit for uniformed Base employees (DOD-supplied shuttle service)Uniformed Base employees are able to use the worker/driver buses Yes Yes No PASS T6 More bus routes to the shipyard Yes Yes No PASS T7 Micro transit to main corridors that have frequent/BRT routes Micro transit is an on-call transit service that uses vans or small shuttles that allows for flexible schedules.Yes Yes No PASS T8 Shuttle service between Park & Rides and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency)Yes Yes No PASS T9 Downtown circulator bus Repeat of T8 N/A N/A N/A FAIL T10 Increase capacity or frequency of Port Orchard and Annapolis ferries Repeat of PC3 N/A N/A N/A FAIL T12 Commuter boats to cross Port Washington Narrows No No No FAIL T13 Change minimum usage for worker/driver program There is not currently a minimum usage requirement N/A N/A N/A FAIL T14 More drivers for Kitsap Transit to increase frequency Yes Yes No PASS T15 Cover more shift times with bus and/or worker/driver Yes Yes No PASS T16 2 different early morning worker/driver buses Yes Yes No PASS T17 Expand vanpool program Yes Yes No PASS T18 Add worker/driver vans and change frequency to more than once each direction for some routes Some worker/driver buses are already near or at capacity Yes Yes No PASS T19 Worker/driver late bus (similar to sports team buses) or on-call shuttle Yes Yes No PASS T20 Larger ferries or more frequency for fast ferry routes (particularly Annapolis FF)Repeat of T10 and PC3 N/A N/A N/A FAIL T21 Utilize Navy rail line for commuter rail (or bus/rail combo)Repeat of O4 N/A N/A N/A FAIL T22 Kiss and rides near all gates Kiss and rides are locations where people can pull out of the traffic stream to let people out of their car to catch a bus. In this case it would be locations to drop passengers so they can walk onto the base. Can reduce need for parking, but does not reduce volume. Yes Yes No PASS T23 Expanded area for bus service (both origin and destination)Yes Yes No PASS T24 Incentive system for using alternative transportation modes (ex: by-passing traffic lights, bus only lanes)Covered by C7, C18, C22, C23, C29 N/A N/A N/A FAIL T25 Improve ferry system (increase capacity, more reliable schedule, increase area service)Yes Yes No PASS T26 Shuttle service between Bangor and NBK-BR Yes Yes No PASS T27 WSF should add Bike Parking to their facilities Yes Yes No PASS Active Transportation AT1 Construct a mobility hub at the Gateway Park & Ride for first/last mile connections. Project may include space for bike share, scooter share, car share, as well as curb space for ride hailing service pickups like Uber and Lyft. A Mobility Hub is a centralized point where different modes of transportation come together seamlessly. It can include space for bike share, scooter share, car share, as well as curb space for ride hailing services pickups like Uber and Lyft. They are placed in strategic locations, typically where employment, housing, shopping, transit, and/or recreation are concentrated. Yes Yes No PASS AT2 Pedestrian overpass to Charleston gate Repeat of AT8 N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT3 Add well-lit crosswalks at the bus stop (Montgomery & 6th) to improve access to Gateway Park and Ride.Yes Yes No PASS AT4 Remove the existing sharrows located on the eastern portion of Kitsap Way and replace with bike lanes. N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT5 Within the 5-minute walksheds, upgrade all sidewalks in Fair, Marginal, Poor, or Very Poor condition; add sidewalks where missing; and upgrade marked and unmarked crossings to be ADA compliant.Yes Yes No PASS AT6 Add reasonably spaced pedestrian crossings Similar to SDOT and other cities; need to consider complimentary actions needed to actually lower speeds (e.g. road diet, dynamic speed signs)Yes Yes No PASS AT7 Ped bridge from Port Orchard No No No FAIL AT8 Construct a grade-separated crossing on Charleston Blvd, either at Charleston Beach Rd or Farragut St. Between the two, Charleston Beach Rd has a wider area of coverage for pedestrians to cross, with heavy traffic volumes, so this intersection should be prioritized. Grade separated refers to a bridge or tunnel that goes over or under a roadway.Yes Yes No PASS 2 of 5 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan First Level Screening # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Is it consistent with the study goals?Is it feasible?Is it ineffective according to previous studies?First Level Screening ResultAT9 Construct at-grade crossing enhancements at Charleston Blvd/Charleston Beach Rd such as improved intersection geometries, new paint, and leading pedestrian intervals.Yes Yes No PASS AT10 Construct at-grade pedestrian crossing enhancements at Charleston Blvd/Farragut St such as improved intersection geometries, continental striping, and leading pedestrian intervals. Install sensors to detect bikes at the traffic signal. To address vehicle-bike conflicts at Charleston Gate resulting from high speed right turn movements across the bicycle lane/shoulder, consider design treatments to buffer bicyclists from turning vehicles. Yes Yes No PASS AT11 Stripe the crosswalk at Charleston Blvd/Rodgers St by the bus stop.Yes Yes No PASS AT12 Construct a grade-separated crossing over Burwell St near State St/Burwell St intersection.Yes Yes No PASS AT13 Gondola from Port Orchard to Bremerton.No No No FAIL AT14 Construct an off-street trail from Gorst to downtown Bremerton. The trail will be 12 feet wide for bicyclists and pedestrians, and will not coincide with the roadway. This refers to a bicycle and pedestrian trail that would be 12 feet wide and not coincide with the roadway. Some level of buffer between the road edge and trail would be necessary. Details would be worked out in a future Gorst project. Yes Yes No PASS AT15 Establish safe east/west walking routes along the north perimeter of the base (e.g. Burwell St and 1st St to Charleston Blvd), including wayfinding and sidewalks. Stripe a crosswalk and consider additional enhanced crossing elements on Anoka Avenue at Burwell St, and at Burwell St and N Callows Ave to facilitate easier pedestrian crossings. Implement sidewalks and crosswalks on 1st Street to make it a viable option for pedestrians, and extend the sidewalk on Chester Ave to connect Burwell Street to 1st Street. Fill the sidewalk gaps along Burwell St east of Naval Avenue. Additional wayfinding could be implemented at Burwell Street and Pacific Avenue to direct people to nearby attractions and the Naval Base. Yes Yes No PASS AT16 Upgrade pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of all pedestrian gates at NBK-BR to establish a safe, comfortable walking route to the Base. Widen sidewalks along Montgomery Ave, Naval Ave, and State St. Consider pedestrian safety enhancements near the bus stops on Burwell Ave. Yes Yes No PASS AT17 Upgrade pedestrian facilities on Montgomery Ave from 6th St to 1st St to establish a safe, comfortable walking route from the Gateway P&R to the Base by widening the sidewalks along Montgomery Ave and adding ADA- complaint curb ramps at the intersection of Montgomery Ave/Burwell St. Yes Yes No PASS AT18 Inventory sidewalk obstructions/disrepair/ADA issues throughout downtown and identify priority locations for upgrades Already a requirement Yes Yes No PASS AT19 Install bike locker parking outside (and/or inside) the State Street, Burwell, and Bremerton gates. Naval and Charleston would also benefit from bike parking, but are less of a priority due to lower pedestrian traffic.Yes Yes No PASS AT20 Explore pedestrian/bike upgrades near the Charleston gate to incentivize their use. From the city’s non- motorized plan, Charleston Gate is mentioned as a high vehicle-bicycle conflict area due to high speed right turn movements across the bicycle lane/shoulder. According to the bike network workshop, there are still issues regarding bike proximity sensors (or lack thereof), so a solution could be to install such sensors to enhance bicycle commuting. Additional curb treatments could be implemented to allow bicycles larger buffers from turning vehicles at the intersection, along with the addition of bike lanes or an off street trail. N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT21 Extend the planned bike facilities to provide bike access to the Charleston, Montgomery, Naval, and State gates. Treatments at specific intersections; see above for Charleston Gate. Montgomery Avenue between 1st and 6th street is flat, low volume, and suitable for low stress bicycle networks (could potentially act as a neighborhood greenway). Addition of bicycle facilities or even a greenway would give access to this gate for cyclists, and there are little to no sidewalk gaps along Montgomery posing little problems to pedestrian access. Regarding Naval Gate, preliminary design work does not show relationship between bike facilities, but the non-motorized transportation plan does recommend bike facilities along Naval Avenue as well as specific intersection treatments at various crossings (examples include crosswalk restriping and sidewalk improvements). Regarding State Gate, there are high pedestrian volumes and many sidewalks surrounding State Gate are in good shape. There are no bicycle facilities along State Street and there aren’t plans for facilities found in the non-motorized transportation plan. Projects could include the addition of such facilities such as planned sharrow or bike lane extensions. N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT22 Develop a biking map of downtown Bremerton, including how to access/navigate the Base by bike Yes Yes No PASS AT23 Evaluate what planned bike facilities can be upgraded to provide more comfort (e.g. bike lane instead of sharrows, protected bike lane instead of bike lane, etc.), focusing establishing continuous networks without gaps. Burwell Street has limited right of way that could potentially fit a bike lane; this street would need greater protection than a sharrow due to higher traffic volumes and speed. Construct an off-street bike facility on 1st Street southbound. Additional improvements could include a replacement of on-street parking with a bicycle lane along Pacific Avenue, extending planned bike lanes west to entirely cover 11th Street from Kitsap Way, and constructing bike lanes along Montgomery Avenue instead of sharrows. N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT24 Implement bike/ped improvements proposed by the SR 303 Study. Need better N/S connection for cyclists in the vicinity of Warren Ave.Repeat of C29 N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT25 Improve pedestrian crossings on Kitsap Way/6th Street: Stripe new high-visibility crosswalks on 6th Street at Montgomery Avenue, High Avenue, and Chester Avenue. Implement crossing enhancements at the 6th Street and SR-3 interchange, such as restriping, stop bars, signage to yield to pedestrians, and ADA upgrades. Enhance crosswalks at Kistap Way/National Ave, Kitsap Way/Oyster Bar Ave, Kistap Way/Ostrich Bay Ave, to provide striping at all sides of the intersection. Add a PHB or signal between Morgan Road and Corbet Drive to provide access to the bus stops and businesses. Consideration for crossings at, or near, bus stops could help to encourage transit use on the corridor.Yes Yes No PASS AT26 Upgrade Charleston Blvd to be more comfortable for people walking and biking. This includes adding new crossings, upgrading existing crossings, and adding protected bike lanes. A new crossing should be constructed at the bus stop before Charleston Blvd/Farragut St, and at Charleston Blvd/Rodgers St. Improve the existing crossing at Charleston Blvd/Farragut St with high visibility striping and consider an enhanced pedestrian crossing. N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT27 Improve the sidewalk conditions in the neighborhood west of Charleston Blvd. (There are sidewalk gaps approaching Charleston Blvd along Cambria Avenue, missing curb ramps on sidewalks, and many sidewalks that are uneven and made with gravel. Lafayette Avenue has the same sidewalk profiles, with more intersections and transit stops along the corridor that need ADA improvements. Fill sidewalk gaps on Summit Avenue.) A lot of people are moving to this area and not many full width/ada accessible sidewalks.Yes Yes No PASS AT28 At the intersection of Burwell St/Park Ave, improve visibility of pedestrians crossing the street by adding leading pedestrian intervals. Consider additional signage to remind drivers to look for pedestrians, such as in pavement lighting or a flashing signal on the eastern ap proach to the signal to warn drivers accelerating out of the tunnel to slow for the signal/pedestrians. Consider removing the tree at the NE corner of the intersection to increase pedestrian visibility/sight distance for drivers. Yes Yes No PASS AT29 Remove the proposed sharrow along Union Ave W between Werner Rd and Earhart St from future construction plans.The proposed sharrow is not feasible given terrain and cost Yes Yes No PASS AT30 Provide pedestrian safety enhancements at Callow Ave/1st St, such as adding a signalized pedestrian crossing, and re-striping the crosswalk with high visibility paint. People get stranded in the median. There have been some ped accidents. Right by the Pho restaurant. Also a transit stop here. Possibly relocate cross-walk to north side of intersection. Consider HAWK signal. Yes Yes No PASS AT31 Add crosswalks on Hewitt Avenue north and south of Burwell Street, and Anoka Avenue at Burwell Street.Yes Yes No PASS AT32 Relocate the bike lanes on the Manette Bridge to be adjacent to the sidewalk, on the other side of the concrete barrier Widened sidewalks across bridge part of SR 303 Corridor Study Yes Yes No PASS AT33 Add crosswalk at Highland Ave/11th St Yes Yes No PASS AT34 Implement wayfinding throughout downtown Bremerton for pedestrian routes and bicycle routes to help people navigate to popular destinations (e.g. Manette, ferry, parks, etc.) Wayfinding refers to adding signs, kiosks, apps that help people navigate a city using the sidewalk or bicycle network. Yes Yes No PASS AT35 Modify approach to sidewalk design in Bremerton so new constructed sidewalks do not have vertical barriers (i.e. returned curbs) While these are ADA compliant, they are not best practice, as they perpetually trap debris and require cleaning by hand in many cases; can be a tripping hazard; and create tight pedestrian environments. We do not recommend redoing these locations, but when locations that are not ADA compliant get upgraded, we recommend moving away from this approach. This recommendation may be better suited outside the context of this project list. Yes Yes No PASS AT36 Extend the bike lane on Washington Avenue to the ferry terminal N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT37 Naval Avenue Elementary School Safe Routes To School (SRTS) improvements - inventory bike/ped facilities in the walking catchment area and identify specific improvements to make it safer to walk and bike Project from the Non-Motorized Plan Yes Yes No PASS AT38 Bremerton High School SRTS improvements - inventory bike/ped facilities in the walking catchment area and identify specific improvements to make it safer to walk and bike Project from the Non-Motorized Plan Yes Yes No PASS AT39 More protected bike lanes and storage Covered by AT4 and AT19 N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT40 Safety for pedestrians (streetlights, intersection crossings, improve/add sidewalks, infrastructure to support slower speeds in residential areas)Covered by AT5, AT8, AT9, AT10, AT11, AT15, AT16, AT18, AT28, AT30 N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT41 Improve pedestrian infrastructure to shipyard Covered by AT5, AT8, AT9, AT10, AT11, AT12, AT15, AT16, AT17, AT20, AT26, AT28, AT30, AT31 N/A N/A N/A FAIL AT42 Revise State St gate to remove ped/vehicle conflicts Solutions could include speed humps along 1st St to slow down vehicles, signs to warn vehicles of pedestrian activity, and defined areas for pedestrians to queue before entering the gate Yes Yes No PASS 3 of 5 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan First Level Screening # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Is it consistent with the study goals?Is it feasible?Is it ineffective according to previous studies?First Level Screening ResultAT43 Evaluate safety enhancements at the site of the pedestrian fatality near the Kitsap Way/Morgan Road intersections, including an enhanced crosswalk such as a pedestrian crossing signal such as an RRFB or pedestrian hybrid beacon. Yes Yes No PASS AT44 Install motorcycle parking outside (and/or inside) the State St and Charleston gates.Yes Yes No PASS AT45 Provide low-stress bike connections to Olympic College by adding wayfinding and low-stress connections from 13th/Ohio to 16th/Warren. The SR-303 Corridor study proposes future bike facilities around Warren Avenue, specifically along the west side of Warren Avenue from 16th Street to 18th Street, along with a tunnel crossing Warren Avenue at 16th Street. The bike route would be on 16th Street and Chester Avenue (a path that runs through Olympic College that could potentially be a shared use path). Explore the possibility of extending 18th Street in North OC to allow bicyclists to access Ohio Avenue; this avoids major inclines and provides a low-stress bike corridor along Ohio Avenue. This project will require coordination with Olympic College. Yes Yes No PASS AT46 Construct a bike boulevard on High Street through downtown Bremerton including sharrows and wayfinding. High Street is 20 mph and primarily residential. There are not significant inclines across High St outside of a short hill approaching 7th Street. Adjacent roads such as 11th Street and 13th Street are very steep and would be challenging for bicyclists. Modify the RRFB at High St/Burwell St so the push buttons can be used by bicyclists without dismounting and consider additional signage. Yes Yes No PASS AT47 Construct separated bike faciliites on Naval Avenue from 13th St to 1st St. Install bicycle signals at major intersections on Naval Avenue. Additional sensors need to be implemented at major intersections such as Burwell, 6th, and 11th Streets, as bike users are not currently triggering signal lights. Naval Avenue should be prioritized for implementation, with 13th St bike lanes (AT59) occuring in a second phase. Yes Yes No PASS AT48 In line with the Active Transportation Plan, add bike facilities on Shorewood Drive and Cascades Pass Blvd/Deception Pass St/Gray Harbor Ct to provide a key connection from Jackson Park to planned facilities on Kitsap Way and to downtown Bremerton. It also connects the housing area to the base. Shorewood Drive does not experience inclines, is low volume, and has low traffic speeds. Yes Yes No PASS AT49 In response to roadway updates recommended to Kitsap Way and National Ave as part of other projects, construct crosswalks at 1st St/National Ave and install sidewalks on National Ave. Address visibility for northbound traffic on National Avenue at 1st St by adding pedestrian crossing signage and/or trimming the vegetation blocking the intersection. Yes Yes No PASS AT50 Construct protected bike lanes or a shared-use path on Charleston Blvd between 1st St and SR-3 to make it a low- stress facility given high traffic speeds and volumes (ADT is greater than 30,000). The west side of Charleston Blvd has a buffered sidewalk, so the west side could be considered for a shared-use path. Install separate bicycle signal heads at signals to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors, and design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc), such as Charleston Blvd/Farragut Street, where northbound right turning vehicles may conflict with cyclists. Yes Yes No PASS AT51 Construct bike boulevards that connect to downtown Bremerton to flesh out the low-stress bike network. Bike boulevards will include sharrows and distinct, branded wayfinding signage that indicates it is a bicycle route. Where the routes cross signalized intersections, provide bicycle signal detection and actuation, and consider installing separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase. Types of improvements needed at non-signalized intersection include advance warning signs to notify motorists of bicycle boulevard crossings, intersection crossing markings, or raised intersections. Bike boulevards are proposed on 15th St from High Ave to Corbet Dr NW, Chester Ave from Olympic College to 1st St, Montgomery Ave from 1st St to 15th St, State Street from 1st Street to 4th Street, 4th Street from Washington Ave to Naval Ave, 8th Street from Washington Ave to Montgomery Ave, Wycoff Ave from 11th Ave to 26th St, 1st St from Chester Ave to Marion Ave (with added signage at intersections), 19th St from Naval Ave to Corbert Dr NW, National Ave from Kitsap Way to Charleston Beach Blvd, Oyster Bay Ave/W Arsenal Way, Marion Ave from W Arsenal Way to Kitsap Way, Corbet Dr NW from E Phinney Bay Dr to Kitsap Way, Pacific Ave from Burwell St to 13th St. Yes Yes No PASS AT52 Construct protected bike lanes on 11th Street from Kitsap Way to Washington Avenue to connect with proposed bike lanes along Washington Avenue. Protected bike lanes are recommended as ADT is high at around 20,000. Install separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors at N Callow Ave, Naval Ave, High Ave, Warren Ave, Park Ave, and Pacific Ave. Design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc). Yes Yes No PASS AT53 Construct protected bike lanes on 6th Street from Kitsap Way to Washington Avenue. Protected bike lanes recommended as ADT is greater than 10,000. Install separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors at Naval Avenue, High Avenue, Veneta Avenue, Warren Avenue, Park Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Washington Avenue. Design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc). Yes Yes No PASS AT55 Construct bike lanes on Park Avenue from Burwell St to Lower Roto Vista Park, and install separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors at 11th St and 6th St. ADT is less than 5,000 and speeds are relatively low, so bike lanes are sufficient per the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide. Yes Yes No PASS AT58 Add leading pedestrian intervals at key intersections in downtown Bremerton that people frequently walk to access facilities, such as Olympic College, the Naval Base, or Gateway Park & Ride, or key intersections that may align with pedestrian travel patterns to activity centers. As a first phase of improvements, leading pedestrian intervals are recommended at the following intersections: Burwell & State, Burwell & Naval, Burwell & Pacific, Burwell & Washington, Warren & 16th, Warren & 13th, 6th & Montgomery, 6th & Warren, 6th & Pacific, 11th & Warren. Evaluate adding additional leading pedestrian intervals as part of a second phase of improvements. Yes Yes No PASS AT59 Implement a separated bike lane on 13th St from Park Ave to Naval Ave. ADT is close to 10,000 and speeds are relatively low, but the higher volumes and presence of transit stops warrants need for enhanced bicycle facilities to provide connections to Olympic College and other planned facilities on Warren Ave and High Ave. Yes Yes No PASS AT60 Update bicycle lanes to separated bicycle lanes on Wheaton Way to provide low stress facilities due to high ADT around 7,000 and speed limits of 25 MPH. Extend separated bike facilities to Lebo Blvd and Sheridan Rd to connect with Warren Avenue Bridge bike facilities. Yes Yes No PASS AT61 Implement low stress separated bike lanes on National Avenue to provide N/S connections in the Naval Yard area of Bremerton. Road widening would be necessary to provide a low-stress facility, which is recommended due to ADT around 7,000 and 35 MPH speeds. Yes Yes No PASS AT62 Construct protected bike lanes or a shared-use path on Kitsap Way between SR3 and N Callow Ave to make it a low-stress facility given high traffic speeds and volumes (ADT around 40,000). Install separate bicycle signal heads at signals to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors, and design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc). Yes Yes No PASS Education / Marketing E1 Education/marketing campaign for Bremerton residents and NBK-BR employees about transportation options, including bike storage and routes, vanpools, worker/driver program (guaranteed ride home, easy to change routes, real time tracking app, can be used by non-NBK employees), and parking options. Yes Yes No PASS E2 Increase communication and marketing for vanpools Covered by E1 N/A N/A N/A FAIL E3 Education on worker/driver program (guaranteed ride home, easy to change routes, real time tracking app)Covered by E1 N/A N/A N/A FAIL E4 Joint marketing campaign for City or KT - education on the fact that non-NBK employees can also use the worker/driver program Covered by E1 N/A N/A N/A FAIL E5 Education/marketing campaign to increase number of NBK employees commuting from Seattle (reverse commute)Yes Yes No PASS E6 Parking education program about transportation and parking options Covered by E1 N/A N/A N/A FAIL E7 Transportation Liaison at NBK-BR to help new hires and staff find best commuter option for them.Yes Yes No PASS E8 Signage along the routes to educate motorists about merging Yes Yes No PASS Parking Management / Policy PM1 Require NBK-BR contractors to park at a Park & Ride location outside of Downtown with frequent transit service to work Yes Yes No PASS PM2 Revisit on-street parking management strategies including permit programs and paid parking in Downtown Yes Yes No PASS PM3 Establish a transportation management association A transportation management association is typically a non-profit established as a public/private partnership with funding primarily from major employers. Funding is used to support expansion of commuter transportation options as alternatives to single- occupancy vehicles through education, programs, and incentives. Yes Yes No PASS PM4 Restrict new parking in Downtown This may include restricting park and ride lots and/or new standalone public parking facilities (i.e., those that are not accessory to another land use) through zoning. It may also include a City policy to not develop new public parking facilities Downtown that would be for commuter parking. Yes Yes No PASS PM5 Identify priority users for parking (i.e. commuters vs. residents/businesses)Repeat of PM2 (permits)N/A N/A N/A FAIL 4 of 5 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan First Level Screening # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Is it consistent with the study goals?Is it feasible?Is it ineffective according to previous studies?First Level Screening ResultPM6 Increase parking violation fines and enforcement frequency Yes No No FAIL PM7 Parking cash-out for new development and employees in lieu of providing parking A cash-out is a direct payment in lieu of providing parking that is typically paid by an employer to an employee. Parking cash-out could be approved by the City as part of a transportation demand management plan for a new development in lieu of providing on-site parking. Existing employers could also offer parking cash out such as through a TMA. Yes Yes No PASS PM8 Prioritize rideshare and vanpool stalls in existing facilities This is underway but included in new 2022 parking rates and fees for on-street vanpool parking and a GIS map of off-street parking stalls N/A N/A N/A FAIL PM9 Repurpose parking lots for other travel modes Repurposing could include things like kiss and rides, electric bike charging, and parklets. Parklets are small plots of land that people can have lunch, rest while on a longer walk, sit and figure out where they want to go next when visiting a city. Yes Yes No PASS PM10 Issue commuter parking permits for City-owned facilities Monthly parking permits could first be prioritized for residents, Downtown employees, and visitors. If there is excess supply for commuter parking the City could develop a specific permit and pricing to support parking management and transportation related investments in Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. The City already offers monthly permits at some facilities and this program could be expanded and priced appropriately to manage demand. Yes Yes No PASS PM11 Lower/remove fees for employees No No No FAIL PM12 Provide safe parking options Yes Yes No PASS PM13 De-monopolize Diamond parking No No No FAIL PM14 Create commercial parking zones (or non-residential parking permit zones BMC 10.10.030) with on-street paid parking permits for both employees and clientele Yes Yes No PASS Programs/Technologies/Incentives to encourage mode shift CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to Base Telework allows people to work from home and use internet or phone for their meetings.Yes Yes No PASS CTR2 Eliminate fares for Kitsap Transit fixed route buses and worker/driver buses Yes Yes No PASS CTR3 Incentives to ride transit The City would like to offer citation forgiveness for smart commuter registration and 1 month of activity Yes Yes No PASS CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income Yes Yes No PASS CTR5 Provide incentives for mode shift away from SOV for residents of neighborhoods along SR 303 Incentives could include subsidized bus passes, free bus zones, or incentives from employers that do not provide free parking such as shower facilities for bikers and childcare options Yes Yes No PASS CTR6 Provide free parking for vanpools This is underway. The first stall is located on 4th street and spaces are being slotted throughout the City N/A N/A N/A FAIL CTR7 Operate City run rideshare program Yes No No FAIL CTR8 Co-locate worker/driver stops with origins (daycares, schools, etc.)Yes Yes No PASS CTR9 Expand affordable on-site daycare Yes Yes No PASS CTR10 App similar to OneBusAway N/A N/A N/A FAIL CTR11 Improve technology to make the worker/driver program more efficient Yes Yes No PASS CTR12 Partner with Port Orchard to incentivize foot-ferry ridership Yes Yes No PASS CTR13 Tracking system (like Onebusaway)Repeat of CTR10 N/A N/A N/A FAIL CTR14 Address confusing and changing bus routes Yes Yes No PASS CTR15 Encourage shipyard employees to telecommute Repeat of CTR1 N/A N/A N/A FAIL Other O1 Align with other planned projects N/A N/A N/A FAIL O2 Identify who you're designing for (have solutions meet the needs)N/A N/A N/A FAIL O3 Keep in mind growth especially through Gorst N/A N/A N/A FAIL O4 Use the Navy's rail line to move people No No Yes FAIL O5 Reduce posted speeds (near gate entrances)Yes Yes No PASS O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes Yes Yes No PASS O7 Funnel drivers to desired arterials through design/traffic calming Yes Yes No PASS O8 Separate truck traffic from GP traffic; provide load/unload zones and restrict time of day Yes Yes No PASS O9 Enforcement at at-capacity or over-capacity Park & Rides Yes Yes No PASS O10 Make Callow area more livable - get NBK employees to live near NBK Yes Yes No PASS O11 Incentivize development with sidewalks and bike lane improvements near developable land No Yes No FAIL O12 Keep worker/driver system map more up-to-date Yes Yes No PASS O13 More transit-oriented development at Park & Rides Transit oriented development includes adding more retail, services, housing near a transit station or Park&Ride. The goal would be to increase population density while minimizing the need for owning and/or driving a vehicle. Yes Yes No PASS O14 Kayaking from Port Orchard Yes No No FAIL O15 Off-board payment for transit Off-board payment allows people to pay their bus fare before they get onto the bus. This reduces the amount of time a bus waits at a stop because people can get on and off using all doors. Yes Yes No PASS 5 of 5 Appendix J Second Level Screening Build Alternatives DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects No Build Projects Parking Improvement Roadway Improvement Transit Improvement Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service/ Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other PM2 Revisit on-street parking management strategies including permit programs and paid parking in Downtown PM3 Establish a transportation management association C26 Traffic Management Center C27 Variable message signs C35 Adaptive signal timing at all signalized intersections C38 Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan T6 More bus routes to the shipyard CTR3 Incentives to ride transit CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income CTR5 Provide incentives for mode shift away from SOV for residents of neighborhoods along SR 303 CTR8 Co-locate worker/driver stops with origins (daycares, schools, etc.) CTR11 Improve technology to make the worker/driver program more efficient CTR12 Partner with Port Orchard to incentivize foot-ferry ridership O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes O9 Enforcement at at-capacity or over-capacity Park & Rides O12 Keep worker/driver system map more up-to-date O16 More shelters at transit stops with lighting System-Level Improvements Included in All Alternatives System-Level Improvements Included in This Alternative PC12 Expand parking through public/private partnerships. New downtown parking should be mixed-use with active street-level uses PM 10 Issue commuter parking permits for City-owned facilities E1 Education/marketing campaign for Bremerton residents and NBK-BR employees about transportation options E5 Education/marketing campaign to increase number of NBK employ- ees commuting from Seattle (reverse commute) E7 Transportation Liaison at NBK-BR to help new hires and staff find best commuter option for them CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to Base O10 Make Callow area more livable - get NBK employees to live near NBK O7 Funnel drivers to desired arterials through design/traffic calming CITY OF BREMERTON Project Code Improvement Type 15TH ST 11TH ST 6TH ST WARREN AVE (SR 303)6TH ST 16TH T BURWELL ST (SR 304) 13TH ST PARK AVESHELDONB L V D KITSAP WAY (SR 3 10 ) 12TH ST PARK AVEEVA CIFICAP4TH STNAVALAVE VENETA AVE2ND S TWASHINGTON AVEELIZABETH AVEHIGH AVELINCOLN AVEEVA ETIREUGRAMEVA YAWDAORBNCAMBRIANAVEN WYCOFF AVE5TH STN MONTGOMERY AVEBRYAN AVES CALLOW AVE15TH ST MANETTE BRIDGE C32 C24 C24 C10 B4B4 C9 C9 C9 C9 PC14 PC13 PC13 PC16 STATE AVE6TH ST HEWITT AVE CITY OF BREMERTON Project Code Improvement Type New Grade- SeparationHOV Lane Parking Management Base Gate Improvement New Parking Park & Ride Improvement P & R Passenger Loading Zone Restrict New Parking RoundaboutSignal Improvement Support Parking Alternative Sheet 2 of 3 N 0 600300 Feet DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Transit Improvement Parking Improvement No Build Projects Roadway Improvement PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other S NATIONAL AVE1ST STNNATIONALAVE 3RD AVECORBET DROYSTERBAYAVES CHARLESTON AVERODGERS STWARSENALWAYMAR IN E D R KITSAP WAY (SR 310)N LAFAYETTE AVEN MARION AVEUNIONAVE21ST ST 19TH STJACKSONDR S SUMMIT AVEMONROE ST 11TH ST BREMERTON BLVD1ST ST 6TH ST ROOSEVELTBLVDEPHINNEYBAY DR 9TH ST S LAFAYETTE AVEMORGAN RDB A Y V IST A BL V D EVA NOIRAM S5TH ST 13TH ST N LAFAYETTE AVEKELLY RD W WERNER RD ADELEAVEAUT OC E N T E R WA Y ROCKYPOINT RDNW17TH ST 20TH ST 1ST ST O ST CHARLESTON BLVD24TH ST CHARLOTTE AVEETHAN CTLOXIE EAGANS BLVDN OYSTER BAY AVESUNDOWN DR PLEASANT DRBRUENNAVEOSTRICHBAYAVEAUTO C ENT E RBLV D SINCLAI R W A Y WILBERT AVES R 3 FORDAVENW 18TH ST SHARTFORDAVES SUMMIT AVE17TH ST N WYCOFF AVETIMES AVEBERTHA AVEL OWE RMAR IN E D R 6THST N CHARLOTTE AVEDORA AVEEVA NAIRBMAC NSDORAAVESR3SMARINEDRS MARION AVEKEAN BLVD C16 C1 Support Parking Alternative Sheet 3 of 3 C39 C39 C39 C39 B4 C2 C1 C2 DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only 0 0.20.1 MilesN CITY OF BREMERTON City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Parking Improvement Roadway Improvement Transit Improvement No Build Projects Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS Project Code Improvement Type New Grade- SeparationHOV Lane Parking Management Base Gate Improvement New Parking Park & Ride Improvement P & R Passenger Loading Zone Restrict New Parking RoundaboutSignal Improvement PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects No Build Projects Parking Improvement Roadway Improvement Transit Improvement Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service/ Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other PM2 Revisit on-street parking management strategies including permit programs and paid parking in Downtown PM3 Establish a transportation management association C26 Traffic Management Center C27 Variable message signs C35 Adaptive signal timing at all signalized intersections C38 Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan T6 More bus routes to the shipyard CTR3 Incentives to ride transit CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income CTR5 Provide incentives for mode shift away from SOV for residents of neighborhoods along SR 303 CTR8 Co-locate worker/driver stops with origins (daycares, schools, etc.) CTR11 Improve technology to make the worker/driver program more efficient CTR12 Partner with Port Orchard to incentivize foot-ferry ridership O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes O9 Enforcement at at-capacity or over-capacity Park & Rides O12 Keep worker/driver system map more up-to-date O16 More shelters at transit stops with lighting E1 Education/marketing campaign for Bremerton residents and NBK-BR employees about transportation options E5 Education/marketing campaign to increase number of NBK employ- ees commuting from Seattle (reverse commute) E7 Transportation Liaison at NBK-BR to help new hires and staff find best commuter option for them CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to Base O10 Make Callow area more livable - get NBK employees to live near NBK System-Level Improvements Included in All Alternatives System-Level Improvements Included in This Alternative DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY T8 Shuttle service between Park & Rides and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency) T15 Cover more shift times with bus and/or worker/driver T16 2 different early morning worker/driver buses T17 Expand vanpool program T19 Worker/driver late bus (similar to sports team buses) or on-call shuttle O13 More transit-oriented development at Park & Rides PM1 Require NBK-BR contractors to park at a Park & Ride location outside of Downtown with frequent transit service to work PM7 Parking cash-out for new development and employees in lieu of providing parking PM9 Repurpose parking lots for other travel modes CITY OF BREMERTON Project Code Improvement Type 15TH ST 11TH ST 6TH ST WARREN AVE (SR 303)6TH ST 16TH T BURWELL ST (SR 304) 13TH ST PARK AVESHELDONB L V D KITSAP WAY (SR 3 10 ) 12TH ST PARK AVEEVA CIFICAP4TH STNAVALAVE VENETA AVE2ND S TWASHINGTON AVEELIZABETH AVEHIGH AVELINCOLN AVEEVA ETIREUGRAMEVA YAWDAORBNCAMBRIANAVEN WYCOFF AVE5TH STN MONTGOMERY AVEBRYAN AVES CALLOW AVE15TH ST MANETTE BRIDGE C23 C23 C23 C23 C23C23C23C23C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 C23 PM4 PM14 C24 C24 C20C20 T22 T22 STATE AVE6TH ST HEWITT AVET22 T22 T22 CITY OF BREMERTON Project Code Improvement Type New Grade- SeparationHOV Lane Parking Management Base Gate Improvement New Parking Park & Ride Improvement P & R Passenger Loading Zone Restrict New Parking RoundaboutSignal Improvement Relocate Parking Alternative Sheet 2 of 3 N 0 600300 Feet DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Transit Improvement Parking Improvement No Build Projects Roadway Improvement Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other S NATIONAL AVE1ST STNNATIONALAVE 3RD AVECORBET DROYSTERBAYAVES CHARLESTON AVERODGERS STWARSENALWAYMAR IN E D R KITSAP WAY (SR 310)N LAFAYETTE AVEN MARION AVEUNIONAVE21ST ST 19TH STJACKSONDR S SUMMIT AVEMONROE ST 11TH ST BREMERTON BLVD1ST ST 6TH ST ROOSEVELTBLVDEPHINNEYBAY DR 9TH ST S LAFAYETTE AVEMORGAN RDB A Y V IST A BL V D EVA NOIRAM S5TH ST 13TH ST N LAFAYETTE AVEKELLY RD W WERNER RD ADELEAVEAUT OC E N T E R WA Y ROCKYPOINT RDNW17TH ST 20TH ST 1ST ST O ST CHARLESTON BLVD24TH ST CHARLOTTE AVEETHAN CTLOXIE EAGANS BLVDN OYSTER BAY AVESUNDOWN DR PLEASANT DRBRUENNAVEOSTRICHBAYAVEAUTO C ENT E RBLV D SINCLAI R W A Y WILBERT AVES R 3 FORDAVENW 18TH ST SHARTFORDAVES SUMMIT AVE17TH ST N WYCOFF AVETIMES AVEBERTHA AVEL OWE RMAR IN E D R 6THST N CHARLOTTE AVEDORA AVEEVA NAIRBMAC NSDORAAVESR3SMARINEDRS MARION AVEKEAN BLVD P & R C1 C23 C23 Relocate Parking Alternative Sheet 3 of 3 C23 C23 C23 C23 PC6 C31 C2 C23 T22 T22 C23 C7 C23 DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only 0 0.20.1 MilesN CITY OF BREMERTON City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Parking Improvement Roadway Improvement Transit Improvement No Build Projects Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS Project Code Improvement Type New Grade- SeparationHOV Lane Parking Management Base Gate Improvement New Parking Park & Ride Improvement P & R Passenger Loading Zone Restrict New Parking RoundaboutSignal Improvement PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects No Build Projects Parking Improvement Roadway Improvement Transit Improvement PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service/ Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other Project Code Improvement Type CITY OF BREMERTON PM2 Revisit on-street parking management strategies including permit programs and paid parking in Downtown PM3 Establish a transportation management association C26 Traffic Management Center C27 Variable message signs C35 Adaptive signal timing at all signalized intersections C38 Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan T6 More bus routes to the shipyard CTR3 Incentives to ride transit CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income CTR5 Provide incentives for mode shift away from SOV for residents of neighborhoods along SR 303 CTR8 Co-locate worker/driver stops with origins (daycares, schools, etc.) CTR11 Improve technology to make the worker/driver program more efficient CTR12 Partner with Port Orchard to incentivize foot-ferry ridership O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes O9 Enforcement at at-capacity or over-capacity Park & Rides O12 Keep worker/driver system map more up-to-date O16 More shelters at transit stops with lighting E1 Education/marketing campaign for Bremerton residents and NBK-BR employees about transportation options E5 Education/marketing campaign to increase number of NBK employ- ees commuting from Seattle (reverse commute) E7 Transportation Liaison at NBK-BR to help new hires and staff find best commuter option for them CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to Base O10 Make Callow area more livable - get NBK employees to live near NBK System-Level Improvements Included in All Alternatives System-Level Improvements Included in This Alternative DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY B9 Explore enhanced use lease to add private parking garages on base T17 Expand Vanpool Program T19 Worker/driver late bus (similar to sports team buses) or on-call shuttle PM7 Parking cash-out for new development and employees in lieu of providing parking PM9 Re purpose parking lots for other travel modes PM10 Issue commuter parking permits for City-owned facilities O7 Funnel drivers to desired arterials through design/traffic calming 15TH ST 11TH ST 6TH ST WARREN AVE (SR 303)6TH ST 16TH T BURWELL ST (SR 304) 13TH ST PARK AVESHELDONB L V D KI TSAP WAY (SR 3 10 ) 12TH ST PARK AVEEVA CIFICAP4TH STNAVALAVE VENETA AVE2ND S TWASHINGTON AVEELIZABETH AVEHIGH AVEEVA ETIREUGRAM EVAYAWDAORBNCAMBRIANAVEN WYCOFF AVE5TH STN MONTGOMERY AVEBRYAN AVES CALLOW AVE15TH ST MANETTE BRIDGELINCOLN AVEC32 C10 B4B4 C8 PM4 B18 B3 B3 STATE AVE6TH ST HEWITT AVE CITY OF BREMERTON Project Code Improvement Type New Grade- SeparationHOV Lane Parking Management Base Gate Improvement New Parking Park & Ride Improvement P & R Passenger Loading Zone Restrict New Parking RoundaboutSignal Improvement Add Base Alternative Sheet 2 of 3 N 0 600300 Feet DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Transit Improvement Parking Improvement No Build Projects Roadway Improvement Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other S NATIONAL AVE1ST STNNATIONALAVE 3RD AVECORBET DROYSTERBAYAVES CHARLESTON AVERODGERS STWARSENALWAYMAR IN E D R KITSAP WAY (SR 310)N LAFAYETTE AVEN MARION AVEUNIONAVE21ST ST 19TH STJACKSONDR S SUMMIT AVEMONROE ST 11TH ST BREMERTON BLVD1ST ST 6TH ST ROOSEVELTBLVDEPHINNEYBAY DR 9TH ST S LAFAYETTE AVEMORGAN RDB A Y V IST A BL V D EVA NOIRAM S5TH ST 13TH ST N LAFAYETTE AVEKELLY RD W WERNER RD ADELEAVEAUT OC E N T E R WA Y ROCKYPOINT RDNW17TH ST 20TH ST 1ST ST O ST CHARLESTON BLVD24TH ST CHARLOTTE AVEETHAN CTLOXIE EAGANS BLVDN OYSTER BAY AVESUNDOWN DR PLEASANT DRBRUENNAVEO STRICHBAYAVEAUTO C ENT E RBLV D SINCLAI R W A Y WILBERT AVES R 3 FORDAVENW 18TH ST SHARTFORDAVES SUMMIT AVE17TH ST N WYCOFF AVETIMES AVEBERTHA AVEL OWE RMAR IN E D R 6THST N CHARLOTTE AVEDORA AVEEVA NAIRBMAC NSDORAAVESR3SMARINEDRS MARION AVEKEAN BLVD C16 B3 B7 C6 C6 C1 Add Base Alternative Sheet 3 of 3 B4 C1 DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only 0 0.20.1 MilesN CITY OF BREMERTON City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Parking Improvement Roadway Improvement Transit Improvement No Build Projects Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS Project Code Improvement Type New Grade- SeparationHOV Lane Parking Management Base Gate Improvement New Parking Park & Ride Improvement P & R Passenger Loading Zone Restrict New Parking RoundaboutSignal Improvement PC - New / Expanded Parking, C - Capacity Projects, B - Projects on Base, T - Transit Service / Frequency, PM - Parking Management / Policy, CT - Programs to encourage mode shift, O - Other W H E A T O N W A Y LE B O B L V D SHERIDAN RD 11TH ST PINE RDWHEATON WAY (SR 303)6TH ST RIDDELL RD SR 3 SYLVAN WAY PORT ORCHARD BLVDSR 16 BAY ST ( S R 1 6 6 )CHARLESTON BLVDAll Alternatives Active Transportation Improvements BEAC H D R ARNOLD AVEAT55 AT45 AT15 AT59 AT46 AT52 AT11 AT30 AT50 AT49 AT61 AT51 AT48 AT47 AT32 AT29 AT51 AT15 AT16(b) AT12(a,c) AT8(a,c) AT9(b) AT1(a,c) AT10(b) AT8(a,c) AT62 AT51 AT51 AT60 AT27 AT14 AT17 AT19 AT51 AT33 AT53 AT3 AT34 AT31(b) AT31(b) AT28AT51 AUTO C EN T ER WAY AUT O C E N T E R B L V D ROOSEVELTBLVDARSENAL WA Y MARION AVENATIONAL AVEOYSTER BAY AVE1ST STMONTGOMERY AVECAMBRIAN AVE19TH ST 15TH ST PARK AVEHIGH AVE16TH ST LINCOLN AVEPACIFIC AVEWASHINGTONAVECALLOW AVENAVAL AVE8TH STCORBET DR2ND S TBROADWAYAVE13TH ST 17TH ST MANETTE B RI D G EWYCOFF AVELAYFAYETTE AVEHARTFORD AVE15TH STWARREN AVE(SR 303)ADELE AVEBURWELL ST (SR 304) 0 ½¼ MilesN Proposed Bicycle Improvements at Additional Locations than those Identified in City Plans City of Bremerton Urban Growth Boundary City Limits Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton NBK-BR Gates No Build Projects Proposed Bicycle Improvements in Locations Consistent with City Plans No Build Projects KITSAP WAY (SR 310) CITY OF BREMERTON Source: City of Bremerton, Bremerton Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, USGS Project Code Improvement Type Bicycle Improvement Combined Pedestrian / Bicycle Improvement Pedestrian Improvement New Grade- Separation Additional Improvements Included in All Alternatives: •AT22 - Develop biking map of downtown •AT34 - Implement way-finding for people who bike and pedestrians •AT35 - Modify sidewalk design standards to remove vertical barriers •AT5 (a, b only) - upgrade sidewalks and pedestrian crossings to be ADA compliant For descriptions of other AT projects, see page 2. 15 Minute Walkshed AT Active Transportation Project included in all alternative unless as noted below. Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Alternative (a) (b) (c)UNION AVESHOREWOOD DRSR-3AT25 AT58 Improve Pedestrian Crossing Add Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) to Signal Phasing WERNER RD HASELWOOD ST Active Transportation Projects in Improvement C29 (projects proposed in SR 303 study) Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative Capacity Projects (changes in lanes, signals, intersection control, etc.) C29 Build projects proposed in SR 303 study All analysis completed as part of the SR 303 Corridor study through the year 2040 X X X Widen Warren Avenue Bridge to include 10’ sidewalks on both sides X X X Sidewalks at both north and south ends that are forward-compatible with long-term plan X X X Active transportation facility to connect to Lebo Boulevard on the north side of the bridge X X X Provide wayfinding for active transportation X X X Bicycle facilities south of the bridge between SR 303 and Park Avenue X X X Bicycle facilities on Almira Drive from Sylvan Way to NE Riddell Road X X X Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing north of Dibb Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island X X X Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing between 6th Street and 11th Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon signal and pedestrian refuge island X X X Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing north of Pearl Street and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island X X X Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing between Hollis Street and NE Riddell Road and provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon and pedestrian refuge island X X X Update lane striping along SR 303 to delineate active transportation facilities X X X Improve striping along Callahan Drive tunnel to show active transportation facility X X X Install pedestrian crossing treatment at 4th Street and 5th Stree X X X Bicycle facilities from Callahan Drive to Cherry Avenue using lower Wheaton Way, Spruce Avenue, and E 30th Street X X X Build a mid-block pedestrian crossing at Sheridan Road and Spruce Avenue X X X Bicycle facilities on Callahan Drive from SR 303 to lower Wheaton Way using existing tunnel under SR 303 X X X Provide 10' wide sidewalks at the following locations: SR 303 to Almira Drive using NE 32nd Street through Old East Bremerton High School, connecting near Dibb Street Wheaton Way Transit Center to Pine Road NE using NE Normandy Drive or NE Roswell Drive to access Clogston Avenue NE X X X Construct a paved active transportation facility from Cherry Avenue to Almira Drive X X X Bicycle facilities on Almira Drive from Cherry Avenue to Sylvan Way X X X Complete sidewalk connection from south end of Warren Ave Bridge to existing sidewalk south of 18th Street X X X Widen sidewalk to 10’ on west side of SR 303 between 13th Street and Warren Avenue Bridge X X X Construct a tunnel under SR 303 for an active transportation undercrossing, connecting Olympic College to east side of SR 303 X X X Active transportation facilities on 18th Street through Olympic College to Broadway Avenue X X X Active Transportation AT1 Construct a mobility hub at the Gateway Park & Ride for first/last mile connections. Project may include space for bike share, scooter share, car share, as well as curb space for ride hailing service pickups like Uber and Lyft. A Mobility Hub is a centralized point where different modes of transportation come together seamlessly. It can include space for bike share, scooter share, car share, as well as curb space for ride hailing services pickups like Uber and Lyft. They are placed in strategic locations, typically where employment, housing, shopping, transit, and/or recreation are concentrated. X X AT3 Add well-lit crosswalks at the bus stop (Montgomery & 6th) to improve access to Gateway Park and Ride.X X X AT5 Within the 5-minute walksheds, upgrade all sidewalks in Fair, Marginal, Poor, or Very Poor condition; add sidewalks where missing; and upgrade marked and unmarked crossings to be ADA compliant. X X AT8 Construct a grade-separated crossing on Charleston Blvd, either at Charleston Beach Rd or Farragut St. Between the two, Charleston Beach Rd has a wider area of coverage for pedestrians to cross, with heavy traffic volumes, so this intersection should be prioritized. Grade separated refers to a bridge or tunnel that goes over or under a roadway.X X AT9 Construct at-grade crossing enhancements at Charleston Blvd/Charleston Beach Rd such as improved intersection geometries, new paint, and leading pedestrian intervals.X AT10 Construct at-grade pedestrian crossing enhancements at Charleston Blvd/Farragut St such as improved intersection geometries, continental striping, and leading pedestrian intervals. Install sensors to detect bikes at the traffic signal. To address vehicle-bike conflicts at Charleston Gate resulting from high speed right turn movements across the bicycle lane/shoulder, consider design treatments to buffer bicyclists from turning vehicles. X AT11 Stripe the crosswalk at Charleston Blvd/Rodgers St by the bus stop.X X X AT12 Construct a grade-separated crossing over Burwell St near State St/Burwell St intersection.X X AT14 Construct an off-street trail from Gorst to downtown Bremerton. The trail will be 12 feet wide for bicyclists and pedestrians, and will not coincide with the roadway. This refers to a bicycle and pedestrian trail that would be 12 feet wide and not coincide with the roadway. Some level of buffer between the road edge and trail would be necessary. Details would be worked out in a future Gorst project. X X X AT15 Establish safe east/west walking routes along the north perimeter of the base (e.g. Burwell St and 1st St to Charleston Blvd), including wayfinding and sidewalks. Stripe a crosswalk and consider additional enhanced crossing elements on Anoka Avenue at Burwell St, and at Burwell St and N Callows Ave to facilitate easier pedestrian crossings. Implement sidewalks and crosswalks on 1st Street to make it a viable option for pedestrians, and extend the sidewalk on Chester Ave to connect Burwell Street to 1st Street. Fill the sidewalk gaps along Burwell St east of Naval Avenue. Additional wayfinding could be implemented at Burwell Street and Pacific Avenue to direct people to nearby attractions and the Naval Base. X X X 1 of 3 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative AT16 Upgrade pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of all pedestrian gates at NBK-BR to establish a safe, comfortable walking route to the Base. Widen sidewalks along Montgomery Ave, Naval Ave, and State St. Consider pedestrian safety enhancements near the bus stops on Burwell Ave.X AT17 Upgrade pedestrian facilities on Montgomery Ave from 6th St to 1st St to establish a safe, comfortable walking route from the Gateway P&R to the Base by widening the sidewalks along Montgomery Ave and adding ADA-complaint curb ramps at the intersection of Montgomery Ave/Burwell St. X X X AT19 Install bike locker parking outside (and/or inside) the State Street, Burwell, and Bremerton gates. Naval and Charleston would also benefit from bike parking, but are less of a priority due to lower pedestrian traffic. X X X AT22 Develop a biking map of downtown Bremerton, including how to access/navigate the Base by bike X X X AT25 Improve pedestrian crossings on Kitsap Way/6th Street: Stripe new high-visibility crosswalks on 6th Street at Montgomery Avenue, High Avenue, and Chester Avenue. Implement crossing enhancements at the 6th Street and SR-3 interchange, such as restriping, stop bars, signage to yield to pedestrians, and ADA upgrades. Enhance crosswalks at Kistap Way/National Ave, Kitsap Way/Oyster Bar Ave, Kistap Way/Ostrich Bay Ave, to provide striping at all sides of the intersection. Add a PHB or signal between Morgan Road and Corbet Drive to provide access to the bus stops and businesses. Consideration for crossings at, or near, bus stops could help to encourage transit use on the corridor.X X X AT27 Improve the sidewalk conditions in the neighborhood west of Charleston Blvd. (There are sidewalk gaps approaching Charleston Blvd along Cambria Avenue, missing curb ramps on sidewalks, and many sidewalks that are uneven and made with gravel. Lafayette Avenue has the same sidewalk profiles, with more intersections and transit stops along the corridor that need ADA improvements. Fill sidewalk gaps on Summit Avenue.) A lot of people are moving to this area and not many full width/ada accessible sidewalks.X X X AT28 At the intersection of Burwell St/Park Ave, improve visibility of pedestrians crossing the street by adding leading pedestrian intervals. Consider additional signage to remind drivers to look for pedestrians, such as in pavement lighting or a flashing signal on the eastern ap proach to the signal to warn drivers accelerating out of the tunnel to slow for the signal/pedestrians. Consider removing the tree at the NE corner of the intersection to increase pedestrian visibility/sight distance for drivers. X X X AT29 Remove the proposed sharrow along Union Ave W between Werner Rd and Earhart St from future construction plans. The proposed sharrow is not feasible given terrain and cost X X X AT30 Provide pedestrian safety enhancements at Callow Ave/1st St, such as adding a signalized pedestrian crossing, and re-striping the crosswalk with high visibility paint.People get stranded in the median. There have been some ped accidents. Right by the Pho restaurant. Also a transit stop here. Possibly relocate cross-walk to north side of intersection. Consider HAWK signal. X X X AT31 Add crosswalks on Hewitt Avenue north and south of Burwell Street, and Anoka Avenue at Burwell Street.X AT32 Relocate the bike lanes on the Manette Bridge to be adjacent to the sidewalk, on the other side of the concrete barrier Widened sidewalks across bridge part of SR 303 Corridor Study X X X AT33 Add crosswalk at Highland Ave/11th St X X X AT34 Implement wayfinding throughout downtown Bremerton for pedestrian routes and bicycle routes to help people navigate to popular destinations (e.g. Manette, ferry, parks, etc.) Wayfinding refers to adding signs, kiosks, apps that help people navigate a city using the sidewalk or bicycle network. X X X AT35 Modify approach to sidewalk design in Bremerton so new constructed sidewalks do not have vertical barriers (i.e. returned curbs) While these are ADA compliant, they are not best practice, as they perpetually trap debris and require cleaning by hand in many cases; can be a tripping hazard; and create tight pedestrian environments. We do not recommend redoing these locations, but when locations that are not ADA compliant get upgraded, we recommend moving away from this approach. This recommendation may be better suited outside the context of this project list. X X X AT45 Provide low-stress bike connections to Olympic College by adding wayfinding and low-stress connections from 13th/Ohio to 16th/Warren. The SR-303 Corridor study proposes future bike facilities around Warren Avenue, specifically along the west side of Warren Avenue from 16th Street to 18th Street, along with a tunnel crossing Warren Avenue at 16th Street. The bike route would be on 16th Street and Chester Avenue (a path that runs through Olympic College that could potentially be a shared use path). Explore the possibility of extending 18th Street in North OC to allow bicyclists to access Ohio Avenue; this avoids major inclines and provides a low-stress bike corridor along Ohio Avenue. This project will require coordination with Olympic College. X X X AT46 Construct a bike boulevard on High Street through downtown Bremerton including sharrows and wayfinding. High Street is 20 mph and primarily residential. There are not significant inclines across High St outside of a short hill approaching 7th Street. Adjacent roads such as 11th Street and 13th Street are very steep and would be challenging for bicyclists. Modify the RRFB at High St/Burwell St so the push buttons can be used by bicyclists without dismounting and consider additional signage. X X X AT47 Construct separated bike faciliites on Naval Avenue from 13th St to 1st St. Install bicycle signals at major intersections on Naval Avenue. Additional sensors need to be implemented at major intersections such as Burwell, 6th, and 11th Streets, as bike users are not currently triggering signal lights. Naval Avenue should be prioritized for implementation, with 13th St bike lanes (AT59) occuring in a second phase. X X X AT48 In line with the Active Transportation Plan, add bike facilities on Shorewood Drive and Cascades Pass Blvd/Deception Pass St/Gray Harbor Ct to provide a key connection from Jackson Park to planned facilities on Kitsap Way and to downtown Bremerton. It also connects the housing area to the base. Shorewood Drive does not experience inclines, is low volume, and has low traffic speeds. X X X AT49 In response to roadway updates recommended to Kitsap Way and National Ave as part of other projects, construct crosswalks at 1st St/National Ave and install sidewalks on National Ave. Address visibility for northbound traffic on National Avenue at 1st St by adding pedestrian crossing signage and/or trimming the vegetation blocking the intersection. X X X 2 of 3 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only # Improvement Idea Notes on Improvement Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative AT50 Construct protected bike lanes or a shared-use path on Charleston Blvd between 1st St and SR-3 to make it a low-stress facility given high traffic speeds and volumes (ADT is greater than 30,000). The west side of Charleston Blvd has a buffered sidewalk, so the west side could be considered for a shared-use path. Install separate bicycle signal heads at signals to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors, and design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc), such as Charleston Blvd/Farragut Street, where northbound right turning vehicles may conflict with cyclists. X X X AT51 Construct bike boulevards that connect to downtown Bremerton to flesh out the low-stress bike network. Bike boulevards will include sharrows and distinct, branded wayfinding signage that indicates it is a bicycle route. Where the routes cross signalized intersections, provide bicycle signal detection and actuation, and consider installing separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase. Types of improvements needed at non-signalized intersection include advance warning signs to notify motorists of bicycle boulevard crossings, intersection crossing markings, or raised intersections. Bike boulevards are proposed on 15th St from High Ave to Corbet Dr NW, Chester Ave from Olympic College to 1st St, Montgomery Ave from 1st St to 15th St, State Street from 1st Street to 4th Street, 4th Street from Washington Ave to Naval Ave, 8th Street from Washington Ave to Montgomery Ave, Wycoff Ave from 11th Ave to 26th St, 1st St from Chester Ave to Marion Ave (with added signage at intersections), 19th St from Naval Ave to Corbert Dr NW, National Ave from Kitsap Way to Charleston Beach Blvd, Oyster Bay Ave/W Arsenal Way, Marion Ave from W Arsenal Way to Kitsap Way, Corbet Dr NW from E Phinney Bay Dr to Kitsap Way, Pacific Ave from Burwell St to 13th St. X X X AT52 Construct protected bike lanes on 11th Street from Kitsap Way to Washington Avenue to connect with proposed bike lanes along Washington Avenue. Protected bike lanes are recommended as ADT is high at around 20,000. Install separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors at N Callow Ave, Naval Ave, High Ave, Warren Ave, Park Ave, and Pacific Ave. Design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc). X X X AT53 Construct protected bike lanes on 6th Street from Kitsap Way to Washington Avenue. Protected bike lanes recommended as ADT is greater than 10,000. Install separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors at Naval Avenue, High Avenue, Veneta Avenue, Warren Avenue, Park Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Washington Avenue. Design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc). X X X AT55 Construct bike lanes on Park Avenue from Burwell St to Lower Roto Vista Park, and install separate bicycle signal heads to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors at 11th St and 6th St. ADT is less than 5,000 and speeds are relatively low, so bike lanes are sufficient per the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide. X X X AT58 Add leading pedestrian intervals at key intersections in downtown Bremerton that people frequently walk to access facilities, such as Olympic College, the Naval Base, or Gateway Park & Ride, or key intersections that may align with pedestrian travel patterns to activity centers. As a first phase of improvements, leading pedestrian intervals are recommended at the following intersections: Burwell & State, Burwell & Naval, Burwell & Pacific, Burwell & Washington, Warren & 16th, Warren & 13th, 6th & Montgomery, 6th & Warren, 6th & Pacific, 11th & Warren. Evaluate adding additional leading pedestrian intervals as part of a second phase of improvements. X X X AT59 Implement a separated bike lane on 13th St from Park Ave to Naval Ave. ADT is close to 10,000 and speeds are relatively low, but the higher volumes and presence of transit stops warrants need for enhanced bicycle facilities to provide connections to Olympic College and other planned facilities on Warren Ave and High Ave. X X X AT60 Update bicycle lanes to separated bicycle lanes on Wheaton Way to provide low stress facilities due to high ADT around 7,000 and speed limits of 25 MPH. Extend separated bike facilities to Lebo Blvd and Sheridan Rd to connect with Warren Avenue Bridge bike facilities. X X X AT61 Implement low stress separated bike lanes on National Avenue to provide N/S connections in the Naval Yard area of Bremerton. Road widening would be necessary to provide a low-stress facility, which is recommended due to ADT around 7,000 and 35 MPH speeds. X X X AT62 Construct protected bike lanes or a shared-use path on Kitsap Way between SR3 and N Callow Ave to make it a low-stress facility given high traffic speeds and volumes (ADT around 40,000). Install separate bicycle signal heads at signals to provide a leading bicycle signal phase and bike activation sensors, and design all intersections to allow safe movements for bicyclists (e.g. bike boxes, green pavement paint, etc). X X X 3 of 3 Appendix K Second Level Screening Results Second Level Screening Study Goal Area Performance Measures Performance Compared to 2050 No Build Key Findings Performance Compared to 2050 No Build Key Findings Performance Compared to 2050 No Build Key Findings Travel Time Travel Time Reliability Average Score Person hours of delay - general purpose Person hours of delay - Transit Average Score Number of overall crashes Number of serious injury and fatal crashes Average Score Number of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&Rs under low stress conditions Number of high-quality travel choices in the study area Safe and Comfortable Walking and Biking Options Average Score Parking utilization Parking violations City parking revenue City parking enforcement Accessibility to parking for Base workers Tracking the "Bremerton Shuffle" Surface parking/land use impacts Average Score Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan * Assumes paid parking downtown, on-street commuter parking permits in residential zones *Substantional increase in surface parking; results in largest increases in revenue and decreases in the "Bremeton Shuffle" * Would have the highest parking impacts on downtown/neighborhood but would provide the largest boost to City revenues and technology investments. * Alternative is positive from a parking business/resource perspective but most impactful to Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. * Assumes residential only parking permits and paid parking downtown. * Assumes a substantial decrease in surface parking, as existing parking is replaced outside downtown, and a portion of current downtown parking is replaced by redeveloping City- owned surface lots to more active land-uses. It also doesn't account for differences in the user experience of being able to park near or on NBK versus park and ride/transit access. * Assumes a "Commuter Engagement and Incentive Platform" where major employers in the study area would participate in use of a commuter engagement and incentive platform to enhance mobility options and incentives for commuters. * Assumes parking downtown that is used by NBK-BR workers is now provided on Base; also assumes residential only parking permits * Shift in parking from dowtown to th Base results in a decrease in revenue * Alternative doesn't include improvements or policies that would substantially improve enforcement. *Available surface parking largely assumed to remain the same Travel Times and Reliability: Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable. Mobility: Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods. Parking: Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user- friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods. Active Transportation: Improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone. Safety: Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes. * Active transportation is not a differentiator between alternatives. Active transportation projects will be prioritized for the Preferred Alternative. * Active transportation is not a differentiator between alternatives. Active transportation projects will be prioritized for the Preferred Alternative. * Active transportation is not a differentiator between alternatives. Active transportation projects will be prioritized for the Preferred Alternative. * Transit travel times during the AM peak hour are further improved by northbound HOV lane along Charleston Blvd * During the PM peak hour, general purpose and transit travel times improve due to added capacity along Kitsap Way. * Transit travel time during the PM peak hour is further improved by the BAT lane along SR 303. * Impacts to travel time reliability are similar to those associated with travel time. * With minimal changes to volumes in this alternative, impacts to general purpose and transit mobility are similar to those associated with travel time. * General purpose mobility improves during the AM and PM peak hour due to reduced general purpose vehicle volumes. * Transit mobility worsens during the AM and PM peak hour despite the addition of transit signal priority (TSP). This is because the reduction of network vehicles results in a demand for transit, thus increasing the number of transit users in the analysis. This assumes bus service and bus stop locations remain the same as existing. * With minimal changes to volumes along several of the major corridors in this alternative, impacts to general purpose and transit mobility are similar to those associated with travel time. * General purpose mobility improves most along Burwell St due to reduced volumes and added roadway capacity. * Road diet projects at 6th Street and 11th Street provide the largest reduction in overall crashes, and in serious injury and fatal crashes. * Roundabouts and adaptive signal timing provide additional crash reductions. * Road diet projects at 6th Street and 11th Street provide the largest reduction in overall crashes, and in serious injury and fatal crashes. * TSP, roundabouts, and adaptive signal timing provide additional crash reductions. * Roundabouts and adaptive signal timing result in a reduction of overall crashes and the number of serious injury and fatal crashes. * During AM peak hour travel times improve for both general purpose traffic and transit due to roundabouts along Kitsap Way, Burwell Street, and Loxie Eagans Blvd during AM peak hour. * Transit travel times during the AM peak hour are further improved by northbound HOV lane along Charleston Blvd * During PM peak hour travel times worsen for both general purpose traffic and transit due to reduced capacity associated with the 11th Street and 6th Street road diets. * During the PM peak hour, transit travel time improvements associated with the BAT lane along SR 303 are outweighed by reduced capacities associated with the 11th Street and 6th Street road diets. * Impacts to travel time reliability are similar to those associated with travel time. * This alternative assumes 1,000 vehicles will be removed from traffic inbound to downtown during the AM peak hour and from traffic outbound of downtown during the PM peak hour. Assume they instead park outside downtown and take transit in. * General purpose and transit travel times improve due to reduced volumes. * Transit travel times are further improved by TSP. * During the PM peak hour, improvements to general purpose travel time associated with reduced outbound volumes are outweighed by reduced capacities associated with the 11th Street and 6th Street road diets. * During the PM peak hour, improvements to transit travel time associated with BAT lanes along Kitsap Way and SR 303 are outweighed by reduced capacities associated with the 11th Street and 6th Street road diets. * Impacts to travel time reliability are similar to those associated with travel time. Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Second Level Screening Arterial (Direction)From To Distance (miles)TT Speed (mph) Corridor TT Speed (mph) Corridor TT Speed (mph) Corridor TT Speed (mph) AM GP Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:03:30 24 0:03:20 25 0:02:40 32 0:02:40 32 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:03:30 19 0:02:20 29 0:02:20 29 0:02:20 29 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:03:30 16 0:03:30 16 0:03:10 18 0:03:40 15 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:03:40 16 0:03:10 18 0:02:50 20 0:02:50 20 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:08:20 21 0:06:30 27 0:08:00 22 0:08:20 21 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:03:20 16 0:02:10 25 0:02:10 25 0:02:40 20 0:25:50 0:21:00 0:21:10 0:22:30 Change from No Build 0%19%18%13% Score 1 2 2 2 AM Transit Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:06:20 13 0:06:00 14 0:04:20 19 0:05:30 15 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:05:00 13 0:03:50 17 0:03:40 18 0:03:50 17 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:07:40 7 0:07:50 7 0:05:10 11 0:07:50 7 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:07:00 8 0:06:30 9 0:05:20 11 0:06:10 9 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:13:30 13 0:12:10 14 0:10:30 17 0:14:10 12 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:04:50 11 0:03:30 15 0:03:30 15 0:04:00 13 0:44:20 0:39:50 0:32:30 0:41:30 Change from No Build 0%10%27%6% Score 1 2 3 1 PM GP Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:05:30 15 0:05:40 15 0:03:20 25 0:03:40 23 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:04:50 14 0:03:30 19 0:03:20 20 0:03:20 20 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:04:00 14 0:06:30 9 0:07:00 8 0:06:30 9 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:04:20 13 0:03:30 16 0:03:10 18 0:04:30 13 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:13:20 13 0:12:00 15 0:12:40 14 0:11:30 15 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:03:10 17 0:02:20 23 0:02:10 25 0:02:20 23 0:35:10 0:33:30 0:31:40 0:31:50 Change from No Build 0%5%10%9% Score 1 1 1 1 PM Transit Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:07:20 11 0:07:20 11 0:04:10 20 0:05:20 16 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:06:20 11 0:05:00 13 0:04:40 14 0:04:50 14 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:09:00 6 0:11:30 5 0:09:20 6 0:11:20 5 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:07:20 8 0:06:30 9 0:05:10 11 0:07:30 8 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:18:50 9 0:14:30 12 0:13:00 13 0:14:00 12 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:04:00 13 0:03:00 18 0:02:50 19 0:03:00 18 0:52:50 0:47:50 0:39:10 0:46:00 Change from No Build 0%9%26%13% Score 1 1 3 2 No Build Transit Total GP Total GP Total Transit Total Add Base Parking Alternative Relocate Parking AlternativeSupport Parking Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Second Level Screening Arterial (Direction)From To Number of lanes (directional) Free Flow Speed (FFS) Actual Speed Arterial LOS V/C V/C rounded Travel Rate = (1/ Actual speed) Recurring Delay = (t-(1/FFS)) Incident Delay (Du) = (IDAP lookup) TTIm Number of lanes (directional) Actual Speed Arterial LOS V/C V/C rounded Travel Rate = (1/ Actual speed) Recurring Delay = (t-(1/FFS)) Incident Delay (Du) = (IDAP lookup) TTIm AM GP Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 24 C 0.71 0.70 0.042 0.013 1.12E-03 1.50 2 25 C 0.71 0.70 0.040 0.011 1.12E-03 1.43 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 19 C 0.71 0.70 0.053 0.019 1.12E-03 1.60 2 29 B 0.61 0.60 0.035 0.002 6.00E-04 1.06 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 16 C 0.71 0.70 0.062 0.021 1.12E-03 1.56 2 16 D 0.81 0.80 0.062 0.021 2.09E-03 1.58 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 16 D 0.81 0.80 0.064 0.024 2.09E-03 1.66 2 18 D 0.81 0.80 0.055 0.015 2.09E-03 1.44 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 21 D 0.81 0.80 0.048 0.013 2.09E-03 1.41 2 27 D 0.81 0.80 0.037 0.002 2.09E-03 1.12 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 16 D 0.81 0.80 0.062 0.029 1.64E-03 1.94 4 25 C 0.71 0.70 0.041 0.007 5.28E-04 1.24 Average 1.61 1.31 Change from No Build 0%19% Change Type NO CHANGE IMPROVE TTR Score 1 2 AM Transit Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 13 C 0.71 0.70 0.075 0.047 1.12E-03 2.68 2 14 C 0.71 0.70 0.071 0.043 1.12E-03 2.54 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 13 C 0.71 0.70 0.075 0.042 1.12E-03 2.27 2 17 B 0.61 0.60 0.058 0.024 6.00E-04 1.73 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 7 C 0.71 0.70 0.135 0.095 1.12E-03 3.39 2 7 D 0.81 0.80 0.138 0.098 2.09E-03 3.48 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 8 D 0.81 0.80 0.122 0.082 2.09E-03 3.12 2 9 D 0.81 0.80 0.114 0.074 2.09E-03 2.90 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 13 D 0.81 0.80 0.077 0.042 2.09E-03 2.25 2 14 D 0.81 0.80 0.070 0.034 2.09E-03 2.04 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 11 D 0.81 0.80 0.091 0.057 1.64E-03 2.79 4 15 C 0.71 0.70 0.066 0.032 5.28E-04 2.00 Average 2.75 2.45 Change from No Build 0%11% Change Type NO CHANGE IMPROVE TTR Score 1 2 PM GP Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 15 E 0.91 0.90 0.065 0.037 5.10E-03 2.47 2 15 E 0.91 0.90 0.067 0.039 5.10E-03 2.54 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 14 E 0.91 0.90 0.073 0.039 5.10E-03 2.32 2 19 D 0.81 0.80 0.053 0.019 2.09E-03 1.63 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 14 D 0.81 0.80 0.070 0.030 2.09E-03 1.80 2 9 F 1.00 1.00 0.114 0.074 1.99E-02 3.34 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 13 D 0.81 0.80 0.076 0.036 2.09E-03 1.95 2 16 D 0.81 0.80 0.061 0.021 2.09E-03 1.59 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 13 F 1.00 1.00 0.076 0.041 1.99E-02 2.73 3 15 E 0.91 0.90 0.069 0.034 4.01E-03 2.07 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 17 C 0.71 0.70 0.059 0.026 1.12E-03 1.83 2 23 C 0.71 0.70 0.044 0.011 1.12E-03 1.35 Average 2.18 2.09 Change from No Build 0%4% Change Type NO CHANGE IMPROVE GP Score 1 1 PM Transit Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 11 E 0.91 0.90 0.087 0.059 5.10E-03 3.23 2 11 E 0.91 0.90 0.087 0.059 5.10E-03 3.23 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 11 E 0.91 0.90 0.095 0.062 5.10E-03 2.99 2 13 D 0.81 0.80 0.075 0.042 2.09E-03 2.30 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 6 D 0.81 0.80 0.158 0.118 2.09E-03 3.99 2 5 F 1.00 1.00 0.202 0.162 1.99E-02 5.53 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 8 D 0.81 0.80 0.128 0.088 2.09E-03 3.26 2 9 D 0.81 0.80 0.114 0.074 2.09E-03 2.90 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 9 F 1.00 1.00 0.108 0.073 1.99E-02 3.63 3 12 E 0.91 0.90 0.083 0.048 4.01E-03 2.47 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 13 C 0.71 0.70 0.075 0.042 1.12E-03 2.30 2 18 C 0.71 0.70 0.056 0.023 1.12E-03 1.73 Average 3.23 3.03 Change from No Build 0%6% Change Type NO CHANGE IMPROVE TTR Score 1 1 No Build Support Parking Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Second Level Screening Arterial (Direction)From To Number of lanes (directional) Free Flow Speed (FFS) AM GP Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score AM Transit Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score PM GP Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score PM Transit Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score Number of lanes (directional) Actual Speed Arterial LOS V/C V/C rounded Travel Rate = (1/ Actual speed) Recurring Delay = (t-(1/FFS)) Incident Delay (Du) = (IDAP lookup) TTIm Number of lanes (directional) Actual Speed Arterial LOS V/C V/C rounded Travel Rate = (1/ Actual speed) Recurring Delay = (t-(1/FFS)) Incident Delay (Du) = (IDAP lookup) TTIm 2 32 D 0.81 0.80 0.032 0.003 2.09E-03 1.18 2 32 C 0.71 0.70 0.032 0.003 1.12E-03 1.15 2 29 B 0.61 0.60 0.035 0.002 6.00E-04 1.06 2 29 B 0.61 0.60 0.035 0.002 6.00E-04 1.06 2 18 D 0.81 0.80 0.056 0.016 2.09E-03 1.44 2 15 D 0.81 0.80 0.065 0.024 2.09E-03 1.66 2 20 D 0.81 0.80 0.050 0.010 2.09E-03 1.29 2 20 C 0.71 0.70 0.050 0.010 1.12E-03 1.27 2 22 D 0.81 0.80 0.046 0.011 2.09E-03 1.36 2 21 D 0.81 0.80 0.048 0.013 2.09E-03 1.41 3 25 C 0.71 0.70 0.041 0.007 7.98E-04 1.25 4 20 C 0.71 0.70 0.050 0.017 5.28E-04 1.53 1.27 1.35 21%16% IMPROVE TTR IMPROVE TTR 3 2 2 19 D 0.81 0.80 0.052 0.023 2.09E-03 1.88 2 15 C 0.71 0.70 0.065 0.037 1.12E-03 2.33 2 18 B 0.61 0.60 0.055 0.022 6.00E-04 1.66 2 17 B 0.61 0.60 0.058 0.024 6.00E-04 1.73 2 11 D 0.81 0.80 0.091 0.051 2.09E-03 2.31 2 7 D 0.81 0.80 0.138 0.098 2.09E-03 3.48 2 11 D 0.81 0.80 0.093 0.053 2.09E-03 2.39 2 9 C 0.71 0.70 0.108 0.068 1.12E-03 2.73 2 17 D 0.81 0.80 0.060 0.025 2.09E-03 1.77 2 12 D 0.81 0.80 0.081 0.046 2.09E-03 2.36 3 15 C 0.71 0.70 0.066 0.032 7.98E-04 2.01 4 13 C 0.71 0.70 0.075 0.042 5.28E-04 2.28 2.00 2.49 27%10% IMPROVE TTR IMPROVE TTR 3 1 3 25 D 0.81 0.80 0.040 0.011 1.64E-03 1.45 2 23 D 0.81 0.80 0.044 0.015 2.09E-03 1.60 2 20 D 0.81 0.80 0.050 0.017 2.09E-03 1.55 2 20 D 0.81 0.80 0.050 0.017 2.09E-03 1.55 2 8 F 1.00 1.00 0.123 0.083 1.99E-02 3.56 2 9 F 1.00 1.00 0.114 0.074 1.99E-02 3.34 2 18 D 0.81 0.80 0.055 0.015 2.09E-03 1.44 2 13 E 0.91 0.90 0.079 0.039 5.10E-03 2.10 3 14 E 0.91 0.90 0.073 0.037 4.01E-03 2.17 3 15 E 0.91 0.90 0.066 0.031 4.01E-03 1.98 2 25 C 0.71 0.70 0.041 0.007 1.12E-03 1.26 2 23 C 0.71 0.70 0.044 0.011 1.12E-03 1.35 1.91 1.99 13%9% IMPROVE GP IMPROVE GP 2 1 3 20 D 0.81 0.80 0.050 0.021 1.64E-03 1.79 2 16 D 0.81 0.80 0.063 0.035 2.09E-03 2.30 2 14 D 0.81 0.80 0.070 0.037 2.09E-03 2.15 2 14 D 0.81 0.80 0.073 0.039 2.09E-03 2.23 2 6 F 1.00 1.00 0.164 0.124 1.99E-02 4.58 2 5 F 1.00 1.00 0.199 0.159 1.99E-02 5.46 2 11 D 0.81 0.80 0.090 0.050 2.09E-03 2.32 2 8 E 0.91 0.90 0.131 0.091 5.10E-03 3.41 3 13 E 0.91 0.90 0.074 0.039 4.01E-03 2.23 3 12 E 0.91 0.90 0.080 0.045 4.01E-03 2.39 2 19 C 0.71 0.70 0.053 0.020 1.12E-03 1.64 2 18 C 0.71 0.70 0.056 0.023 1.12E-03 1.73 2.45 2.92 24%10% IMPROVE TTR IMPROVE TTR 3 1 Add Base Parking AlternativeRelocate Parking Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Second Level Screening GP AVO 85%1.12 85%1.12 85%1.12 85%1.12 HOV AVO 15%2.2 15%2.2 15%2.2 15%2.2 Arterial (Direction)From To Distance (miles) Free Flow TT Corridor TT # of Vehicles # or Persons Person Hours of Delay Corridor TT # of Vehicles # or Persons Person Hours of Delay (per mile) Corridor TT # of Vehicles # or Persons Person Hours of Delay (per mile) Corridor TT # of Vehicles # or Persons Person Hours of Delay (per mile) AM GP Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:02:20 0:03:30 1,770 1,982 39 0:03:20 1,770 1,982 33 0:02:40 1,510 1,691 9 0:02:40 1,770 1,982 11 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:02:10 0:03:30 830 930 21 0:02:20 930 1,042 3 0:02:20 850 952 3 0:02:20 890 997 3 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:03:30 1,130 1,266 25 0:03:30 930 1,042 20 0:03:10 820 918 13 0:03:40 810 907 20 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:03:40 1,130 1,266 28 0:03:10 1,250 1,400 19 0:02:50 830 930 8 0:02:50 890 997 8 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:06:10 0:08:20 1,170 1,310 47 0:06:30 1,180 1,322 7 0:08:00 930 1,042 32 0:08:20 1,240 1,389 50 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:01:50 0:03:20 1,740 2,230 56 0:02:10 1,740 2,230 12 0:02:10 1,300 1,456 8 0:02:40 1,740 2,230 31 215 95 72 123 Change from No Build 0%56%66%43% Score 1 3 3 3 AM Transit Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:02:20 0:06:20 360 24 0:06:00 360 22 0:04:20 610 20 0:05:30 360 19 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:02:10 0:05:00 260 12 0:03:50 260 7 0:03:40 460 12 0:03:50 260 7 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:07:40 125 11 0:07:50 125 11 0:05:10 175 8 0:07:50 125 11 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:07:00 475 37 0:06:30 475 33 0:05:20 910 46 0:06:10 475 30 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:06:10 0:13:30 520 64 0:12:10 520 52 0:10:30 735 53 0:14:10 520 69 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:01:50 0:04:50 520 26 0:03:30 520 14 0:03:30 930 26 0:04:00 520 19 174 140 165 156 Change from No Build 0%19%5%10% Score 1 2 1 2 PM GP Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:02:20 0:05:30 2,210 2,475 131 0:05:40 2,210 2,475 138 0:03:20 1,960 2,195 37 0:03:40 2,210 2,475 55 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:02:10 0:04:50 1,330 1,490 66 0:03:30 1,440 1,613 36 0:03:20 1,350 1,512 29 0:03:20 1,390 1,557 30 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:04:00 1,390 1,557 43 0:06:30 1,180 1,322 92 0:07:00 1,060 1,187 92 0:06:30 1,040 1,165 81 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:04:20 1,120 1,254 42 0:03:30 1,250 1,400 27 0:03:10 810 907 13 0:04:30 890 997 36 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:06:10 0:13:20 1,760 1,971 235 0:12:00 1,770 1,982 193 0:12:40 1,530 1,714 186 0:11:30 1,840 2,061 183 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:01:50 0:03:10 1,520 1,950 43 0:02:20 1,520 1,950 16 0:02:10 1,080 1,380 8 0:02:20 1,270 1,630 14 561 501 364 399 Change from No Build 0%11%35%29% Score 1 2 3 3 PM Transit Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:02:20 0:07:20 360 30 0:07:20 360 30 0:04:10 610 19 0:05:20 360 18 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:02:10 0:06:20 260 18 0:05:00 260 12 0:04:40 460 19 0:04:50 260 12 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:09:00 125 14 0:11:30 125 19 0:09:20 175 20 0:11:20 125 19 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:07:20 475 40 0:06:30 475 33 0:05:10 910 43 0:07:30 475 41 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:06:10 0:18:50 520 110 0:14:30 520 72 0:13:00 735 84 0:14:00 520 68 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:01:50 0:04:00 520 19 0:03:00 520 10 0:02:50 930 16 0:03:00 520 10 230 177 200 167 Change from No Build 0%23%13%27% Score 1 3 2 3 Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking AlternativeNo Build Total Total Total Total Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Second Level Screening Total Crash CMF KABC Crash CMF Total Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedKABC Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedTotal Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Total Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Total Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Alternative Improvements C1 1.00 0.34 1.00 2, 3 0.34 2, 3 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) C2 1.00 0.34 1.00 104, 105 0.34 104, 105 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 104, 105 0.34 104, 105 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) C6 1.00 0.71 1.00 7 0.71 7 Single left-turn to double left-turn lanes (ODOT H63) C7 -- C8 0.96 1.00 0.96 37 1.00 37 Add right-turn lane (ODOT H4) C9 1.00 0.34 1.00 37, 38, 135, 21 0.34 37, 38, 135, 21 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) C10 0.58 0.58 1.00 35 0.34 35 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) - 35 - 35 No improvement C16 -- -- C20 --Add all-way pedestrian phase (Virginia DOT - ped crashes only) C21 --Add LPI (ODOT BP3 - ped and bike crashes only) --Add LPI (ODOT BP3 - ped and bike crashes only) --Add LPI (ODOT BP3 - ped and bike crashes only) C23 0.87 0.95 0.87 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45 0.95 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45 Add TSP C24 --Added below --Added below 6th St road diet - 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 - 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 10.9 fewer annual crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) - 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 - 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 10.9 fewer annual crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 11th St road diet - 22, 30, 31, 32 - 22, 30, 31, 32 10.9 fewer annual crashes (approoximate based on Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) - 22, 30, 31, 32 - 22, 30, 31, 32 10.9 fewer annual crashes (approoximate based on Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) C26 ------ C27 ------ C29 11th RAB 1.00 0.34 1.00 22 0.34 22 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 22 0.34 22 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 22 0.34 22 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) Ridell RAB 1.00 0.34 1.00 28 0.34 28 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 28 0.34 28 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 28 0.34 28 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) Median treatments 0.70 -0.70 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Add median intersection treatment (ODOT H1) -0.70 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Add median intersection treatment (ODOT H1) -0.70 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Add median intersection treatment (ODOT H1) Furneys porkchop 0.65 -0.65 29 Add channelized right turn with median (ODOT H6) -0.65 29 Add channelized right turn with median (ODOT H6) -0.65 29 Add channelized right turn with median (ODOT H6) C31 -- C32 -- -- C35 0.83 0.92 0.83 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 44, 45 0.92 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 44, 45 Adaptive signal timing 0.83 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45 0.92 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45 Adaptive signal timing 0.83 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 104, 105 0.92 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 104, 105 Adaptive signal timing C38 - added below Burwell St adaptive signals --See adaptive signal timing improvement above (C35) --See adaptive signal timing improvement above (C35) --See adaptive signal timing improvement above (C35) 6th St road diet --See 6th St road diet improvement above (C24) --See 6th St road diet improvement above (C24) 11th/Callow 11 11 1.72 fewer annual crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 11 11 1.72 fewer annual crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 11 11 1.72 fewer annual crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) No Build Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Second Level Screening Total Crash CMF KABC Crash CMF Total Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedKABC Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedTotal Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Total Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Total Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes No Build Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative 13th and Sylvan corridors 23 23 1.39 fewer crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 23 23 1.39 fewer crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 23 23 1.39 fewer crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) C39 1.00 0.34 1.00 4, 5, 6, 7 0.34 4, 5, 6, 7 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) AT1 -- -- AT5 --Add sidewalks (ODOT BP29 - ped crashes on roadway segments only) --Add sidewalks (ODOT BP29 - ped crashes on roadway segments only) AT8 0.70 0.64 0.70 44 0.64 44 Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) 0.70 44 0.64 44 Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) AT9 --Add LPI (ODOT BP3 - ped and bike crashes only) AT10 --Add LPI (ODOT BP3 - ped and bike crashes only) AT12 0.70 0.64 0.70 38 0.64 38 Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) 0.70 38 0.64 38 Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) AT16 Add sidewalks (ODOT BP29 - ped crashes on roadway segments only) --Add sidewalks (ODOT BP29 - ped crashes on roadway segments only) Add sidewalks (ODOT BP29 - ped crashes on roadway segments only) Intersections 2014-2019 Crash Rate 2014-2019 KABC Crash Rate Total Crash CMF Total Crash Rate KABC Crash CMF KABC Crash Rate Total Crash CMF Total Crash Rate KABC Crash CMF KABC Crash Rate Notes Total Crash CMF Total Crash Rate KABC Crash CMF KABC Crash Rate Notes Total Crash CMF Total Crash Rate KABC Crash CMF KABC Crash Rate Notes 2 7 1 1.00 6.50 1.00 1.17 1.00 6.50 0.34 0.40 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 4.69 0.87 1.02 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 5.40 0.92 1.07 Adaptive signal timing 3 9 3 1.00 8.50 1.00 3.00 1.00 8.50 0.34 1.02 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 6.14 0.87 2.62 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 7.06 0.92 2.76 Adaptive signal timing 4 6 2 1.00 5.67 1.00 1.67 1.00 5.67 0.34 0.57 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 4.09 0.87 1.46 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 4.70 0.92 1.53 Adaptive signal timing 5 5 2 1.00 4.83 1.00 1.50 1.00 4.83 0.34 0.51 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 3.49 0.87 1.31 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 4.01 0.92 1.38 Adaptive signal timing 6 6 2 1.00 6.17 1.00 2.00 1.00 6.17 0.34 0.68 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 4.45 0.87 1.75 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 5.12 0.92 1.84 Adaptive signal timing 7 7 2 1.00 7.33 1.00 2.17 1.00 7.33 0.34 0.74 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 5.30 0.87 1.89 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 6.09 0.65 1.42 Single left-turn to double left-turn lanes (ODOT H63), Adaptive signal timing 8 6 2 1.00 6.33 1.00 2.00 0.83 5.26 0.92 1.84 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 4.57 0.87 1.75 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 5.26 0.92 1.84 Adaptive signal timing 10 8 2 1.00 8.33 1.00 1.83 0.83 6.92 0.92 1.69 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 6.02 0.87 1.60 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 6.92 0.92 1.69 Adaptive signal timing 12 5 2 1.00 5.33 1.00 1.83 0.83 4.43 0.92 1.69 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 3.85 0.87 1.60 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 4.43 0.92 1.69 Adaptive signal timing 13 3 1 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 2.49 0.92 0.92 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 2.17 0.87 0.87 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 2.49 0.92 0.92 Adaptive signal timing 14 8 3 1.00 7.50 1.00 2.50 0.83 6.23 0.92 2.30 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 5.42 0.87 2.19 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 6.23 0.92 2.30 Adaptive signal timing 16 2 1 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.83 1.66 0.92 0.46 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 1.44 0.87 0.44 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 1.66 0.92 0.46 Adaptive signal timing 17 9 1 1.00 8.50 1.00 1.00 0.83 7.06 0.92 0.92 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 6.14 0.87 0.87 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 7.06 0.92 0.92 Adaptive signal timing 21 4 1 1.00 4.33 1.00 0.67 1.00 4.33 0.34 0.23 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 3.13 0.87 0.58 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 3.60 0.92 0.61 Adaptive signal timing 22 9 2 1.00 9.00 1.00 2.17 1.00 9.00 0.34 0.74 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 9.00 0.34 0.74 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 9.00 0.34 0.74 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 23 7 3 1.00 7.17 1.00 2.50 0.83 5.95 0.92 2.30 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 5.18 0.87 2.19 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 5.95 0.92 2.30 Adaptive signal timing 24 4 1 1.00 4.33 1.00 1.17 0.83 3.60 0.92 1.07 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 3.13 0.87 1.02 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 3.60 0.92 1.07 Adaptive signal timing 25 14 4 1.00 13.50 1.00 3.67 0.83 11.21 0.64 2.36 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 9.75 0.61 2.24 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 11.21 0.64 2.36 Adaptive signal timing Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Second Level Screening Total Crash CMF KABC Crash CMF Total Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedKABC Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedTotal Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Total Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Total Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes No Build Support Parking Alternative Relocate Parking Alternative Add Base Parking Alternative 26 13 5 1.00 13.17 1.00 4.50 0.83 10.93 0.64 2.90 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 9.51 0.61 2.75 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 10.93 0.64 2.90 Adaptive signal timing 27 4 1 1.00 3.83 1.00 1.33 0.83 3.18 0.64 0.86 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 2.77 0.61 0.82 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 3.18 0.64 0.86 Adaptive signal timing 28 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.04 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.04 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.04 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 30 12 4 1.00 11.83 1.00 3.67 0.83 9.82 0.92 3.37 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 8.54 0.87 3.20 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 9.82 0.92 3.37 Adaptive signal timing 31 4 2 1.00 4.33 1.00 1.67 0.83 3.60 0.92 1.53 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 3.13 0.87 1.46 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 3.60 0.92 1.53 Adaptive signal timing 32 2 1 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.66 0.92 0.77 Adaptive signal timing 0.72 1.44 0.87 0.73 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 1.66 0.92 0.77 Adaptive signal timing 34 1 0 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.33 35 11 2 1.00 11.33 1.00 1.67 0.83 9.41 0.31 0.52 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT), Adaptive signal timing 0.72 8.18 0.87 1.46 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing -0.00 -0.00 No improvement, Adaptive signal timing 36 6 1 1.00 6.17 1.00 1.33 1.00 6.17 1.00 1.33 0.72 4.45 0.87 1.17 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.83 5.12 0.92 1.23 Adaptive signal timing 37 7 2 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.83 1.00 7.00 0.34 0.62 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.72 5.05 0.87 1.60 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.80 5.58 0.92 1.69 Add right-turn lane (ODOT H4), Adaptive signal timing 38 3 1 1.00 2.67 1.00 0.67 0.70 1.87 0.22 0.15 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT), Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) 0.72 1.93 0.87 0.58 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.58 1.55 0.59 0.39 Adaptive signal timing , Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) 44 1 0 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.33 0.58 0.39 0.59 0.20 Adaptive signal timing , Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) 0.72 0.48 0.87 0.29 Add TSP, Adaptive signal timing 0.58 0.39 0.59 0.20 Adaptive signal timing , Install raised pedestrian crossing (Virginia DOT) 45 0 0 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.00 0.83 0.14 0.92 0.00 Adaptive signal timing 0.87 0.15 0.87 0.00 Add TSP 0.83 0.14 0.92 0.00 Adaptive signal timing 47 4 1 1.00 3.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 3.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 3.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 3.67 1.00 0.67 104 5 1 1.00 4.83 1.00 1.17 1.00 4.83 0.34 0.40 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 4.83 0.34 0.40 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.83 4.01 0.92 1.07 Adaptive signal timing 105 10 4 1.00 10.33 1.00 4.17 1.00 10.33 0.34 1.42 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 10.33 0.34 1.42 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 0.83 8.58 0.92 3.83 Adaptive signal timing 135 5 0 1.00 4.50 1.00 0.33 1.00 4.50 0.34 0.11 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 1.00 4.50 1.00 0.33 1.00 4.50 1.00 0.33 400 2 1 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 401 3 0 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.17 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.17 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.17 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.17 Additional change 6th St road diet -10.9 -10.9 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) -10.9 -10.9 Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) -10.9 -10.9 11th St road diet 0 0 (approoximate based on Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 0 0 (approoximate based on Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 11th/Callow -1.72 -1.72 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) -1.72 -1.72 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) -1.72 -1.72 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 13th and Sylvan corridors -1.39 -1.39 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) -1.39 -1.39 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) -1.39 -1.39 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 211 58 211 58 176 22 149 30 154 33 Overall CMF 0.84 0.39 0.71 0.52 0.73 0.57 Change from No Build 0%0%16%61%29%48%27%43% Score 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 Appendix L Cost‐Benefit Analysis Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Cost-Benefit Analysis Free Flow (mins) Travel Time (mins) Travel Time (mins) Change in Travel Time (seconds) # of Vehicles # of People Person Hours of Delay Change in Person Hours of Delay Travel Time (mins) Travel Time (mins) Change in Travel Time (seconds) # of Vehicles # of People Person Hours of Delay Change in Person Hours of Delay Annual Person Hours of Delay Annual Cost of Person-Delay Change in Annual Cost of Person-Delay No Build Annual Crash Rate Build Annual Crash Rate Change No Build Annual Crash Rate KABC CMF Build Annual Crash Rate Change Annual Crash Rate Annual Cost of Crashes Change in Annual Cost of Crashes 34.3 70.2 11,250 389 88.0 12,960 791 988,500 $ 17,694,000 1.00 0.00 1.00 $ 10,900,000 34.3 60.8 -560 11,270 235 -154 81.3 -400 13,000 678 -113 847,400 $ 15,168,000 $ (2,526,000)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 10,900,000 $ - 2.3 0:03:30 3.5 0 0 0:05:25 5.4 -5 -3 $ (77,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:10 3.2 -30 -9 0:03:05 3.1 -75 -22 $ (486,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:40 3.7 0 0 0:04:20 4.3 0 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 1.8 0:03:10 3.2 -10 -6 0:03:00 3.0 0 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:55 3.9 25 4 0:07:25 7.4 205 66 $ 1,477,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0:13:50 13.8 30 16 $ 359,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:05 8.1 -15 -5 0:11:45 11.8 -95 -51 $ (1,136,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0:13:15 13.3 -5 -3 $ (60,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:07:40 7.7 -40 -15 0:15:40 15.7 140 75 $ 1,675,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0:12:40 12.7 -40 -21 $ (479,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:13:30 13.5 0 0 0:15:05 15.1 -225 -33 $ (727,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:40 3.7 0 0 0:04:25 4.4 5 1 $ 32,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:24:00 24.0 -110 -39 0:32:05 32.1 -185 -85 $ (1,895,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:35 3.6 5 3 0:06:40 6.7 70 48 $ 1,078,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:23:55 23.9 -115 -48 0:20:05 20.1 -145 -81 $ (1,824,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.0 0:39:50 39.8 -270 -34 0:51:35 51.6 -75 -21 $ (471,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 34.3 60.8 -560 7,800 11,270 235 -154 83.0 -300 9,370 13,000 704 -87 879,800 $ 15,748,000 $ (1,949,000)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 10,900,000 $ - 2.3 0:03:30 3.5 0 0 0:05:25 5.4 -5 -3 $ (77,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 1.8 0:03:10 3.2 -10 -6 0:03:00 3.0 0 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:55 3.9 25 4 0:07:25 7.4 205 66 $ 1,477,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0:13:50 13.8 30 16 $ 359,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:05 8.1 -15 -5 0:11:45 11.8 -95 -51 $ (1,136,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0:13:15 13.3 -5 -3 $ (60,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:07:40 7.7 -40 -15 0:15:40 15.7 140 75 $ 1,675,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0:12:40 12.7 -40 -21 $ (479,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:13:30 13.5 0 0 0:15:05 15.1 -225 -33 $ (727,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:40 3.7 0 0 0:04:15 4.3 -5 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:23:40 23.7 -130 -45 0:31:45 31.8 -205 -82 $ (1,830,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:35 3.6 5 3 0:06:40 6.7 70 48 $ 1,078,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:23:45 23.8 -125 -51 0:20:10 20.2 -140 -85 $ (1,907,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.0 0:39:50 39.8 -270 -34 0:51:35 51.6 -25 -14 49,500 $ 886,000 $ (322,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 34.3 53.7 -990 10,810 237 -152 70.8 -1030 12,720 565 -226 705,700 $ 12,632,000 $ (5,062,000)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 10,900,000 $ - 2.3 0:06:20 6.3 0 0 0 0:06:30 6.5 -50 0 -3 $ (67,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:40 3.7 0 0 0 0:04:15 4.3 0 0 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:42:35 42.6 -105 0 -2 0:50:35 50.6 -135 0 -16 $ (348,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:30 3.5 0 0 0 0:08:00 8.0 240 0 66 $ 1,468,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0 0:13:10 13.2 -10 0 -13 $ (280,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:05 8.1 -15 0 -12 0:11:40 11.7 -100 0 -125 $ (2,795,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0 0:13:20 13.3 0 0 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:09:15 9.3 55 0 43 0:17:35 17.6 255 0 319 $ 7,127,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0 0:12:35 12.6 -45 0 -56 $ (1,258,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:13:30 13.5 0 0 0 0:16:35 16.6 -135 0 -10 $ (225,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:23:30 23.5 -140 0 -86 0:31:40 31.7 -210 0 -161 $ (3,590,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:22:50 22.8 -180 0 -88 0:29:35 29.6 -340 0 -227 $ (5,072,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.0 0:39:40 39.7 -280 0 0 0 -1 0:49:40 49.7 -190 0 0 0 49 0 $ - $ 1,087,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:38:55 38.9 -325 0 -6 0:47:40 47.7 -310 0 -50 $ (1,114,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 34.3 64.0 -370 10,770 280 -109 77.8 -610 12,150 566 -225 707,500 $ 12,664,000 $ (5,030,000)1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 10,900,000 $ - 2.3 0:03:30 3.5 0 0 0 0:04:10 4.2 -80 0 -55 $ (1,233,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:40 3.7 0 0 0 0:04:15 4.3 -5 0 -3 $ (63,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 1.8 0:03:30 3.5 10 0 6 0:03:00 3.0 0 0 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:04:00 4.0 30 0 13 0:07:25 7.4 205 0 51 $ 1,138,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0 0:13:20 13.3 0 0 0 $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:05 8.1 -15 0 -9 0:11:45 11.8 -95 0 -45 $ (1,008,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0 0:13:15 13.3 -5 0 -2 $ (53,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:09:35 9.6 75 0 43 0:15:35 15.6 135 0 64 $ 1,432,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor)6.2 0:08:20 8.3 0 0 0 0:12:40 12.7 -40 0 -19 $ (424,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 6.2 0:13:30 13.5 0 0 0 0:15:05 15.1 -225 0 -33 $ (726,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 2.3 0:03:40 3.7 0 0 0 0:03:25 3.4 -55 0 -31 $ (693,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:23:20 23.3 -150 0 -75 0:31:35 31.6 -215 0 -100 $ (2,232,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:23:20 23.3 -150 0 -71 0:34:35 34.6 -45 0 -22 $ (490,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 17.2 0:41:30 41.5 -170 0 -18 0:49:45 49.8 -185 0 -30 $ (683,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - GP Improvements C7 - WB BAT lane (Kitsap Way) Signal optimization and change in volumes C1 - RABs at ramp terminals (Kitsap Way) C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C39 - RABs between Shorewood and National (Kitsap Way) C23 - TSP C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C35 - Adaptive signal timing Express Service C8 - Add NBR turn pocket at Burwell/Naval C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C24 - Road diet (6th St) C20 - all-way ped phase at State and Park (Burwell St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C6 - Westbound lane between National and 11th (Kitsap Way) C1 - RABs at ramp terminals (Kitsap Way) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C39 - RABs between Shorewood and National (Kitsap Way) C9 - RABs at Naval, State, Chester, Warren (Burwell St) C10 - RAB at Burwell/Callow C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) Signal optimization and change in volumes C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) Signal optimization and change in volumes Signal optimization and change in volumes Support Parking - Option 2 (Signals) GP Improvements No Build Person Mobility K (Fatal Injury)Annual Support Parking Relocate Parking Add Base Parking TotalSegmentsIntersections2050 PM Peak Hour2050 AM Peak Hour GP Improvements GP Improvements Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Cost-Benefit Analysis C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) GP Improvements C7 - WB BAT lane (Kitsap Way) Signal optimization and change in volumes C1 - RABs at ramp terminals (Kitsap Way) C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C39 - RABs between Shorewood and National (Kitsap Way) C23 - TSP C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C35 - Adaptive signal timing Express Service C8 - Add NBR turn pocket at Burwell/Naval C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C24 - Road diet (6th St) C20 - all-way ped phase at State and Park (Burwell St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C6 - Westbound lane between National and 11th (Kitsap Way) C1 - RABs at ramp terminals (Kitsap Way) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C39 - RABs between Shorewood and National (Kitsap Way) C9 - RABs at Naval, State, Chester, Warren (Burwell St) C10 - RAB at Burwell/Callow C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) Signal optimization and change in volumes C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) Signal optimization and change in volumes Signal optimization and change in volumes Support Parking - Option 2 (Signals) GP Improvements No Build Support Parking Relocate Parking Add Base Parking GP Improvements GP Improvements No Build Annual Crash Rate Build Annual Crash Rate Change No Build Annual Crash Rate KABC CMF Build Annual Crash Rate Change Annual Crash Rate Annual Cost of Crashes Change in Annual Cost of Crashes No Build Annual Crash Rate Build Annual Crash Rate Change No Build Annual Crash Rate KABC CMF Build Annual Crash Rate Change Annual Crash Rate Annual Cost of Crashes Change in Annual Cost of Crashes No Build Annual Crash Rate Build Annual Crash Rate Change No Build Annual Crash Rate KABC CMF Build Annual Crash Rate Change Annual Crash Rate Annual Cost of Crashes Change in Annual Cost of Crashes 7.00 3.33 10.33 $ 5,387,000 43.33 19.33 62.67 $ 8,899,000 173.00 76.33 249.33 $ 18,077,000 7.00 6.83 -0.17 3.33 3.10 -0.23 9.93 $ 5,178,000 $ (209,000)43.33 42.63 -0.70 19.33 16.82 -2.51 59.45 $ 8,442,000 $ (457,000)173.00 170.51 -2.49 76.33 65.17 -11.16 235.68 $ 17,087,000 $ (990,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (16,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 0.34 0.96 -1.87 0.00 $ - $ (136,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.17 -0.33 0.00 $ - $ (47,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.34 1.02 -1.98 0.00 $ - $ (144,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.58 0.97 -0.70 0.00 $ - $ (51,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.33 0.16 -0.17 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (89,000)1.33 0.63 -0.70 1.33 1.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (99,000)4.83 2.34 -2.49 4.17 1.00 4.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (181,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.17 -0.33 0.00 $ - $ (47,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.34 0.57 -1.10 0.00 $ - $ (80,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 1.00 7.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (8,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.52 1.38 -0.12 0.00 $ - $ (63,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 5.52 6.13 -0.53 0.00 $ - $ (76,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 23.50 5.52 21.62 -1.88 0.00 $ - $ (137,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (57,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.34 0.62 -1.21 0.00 $ - $ (172,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.34 1.81 -3.52 0.00 $ - $ (255,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 7.00 6.83 -0.17 3.33 0.00 3.10 -0.23 9.93 $ 5,179,000 $ (209,000)43.33 42.63 -0.70 19.33 17.11 -2.22 59.74 $ 8,485,000 $ (415,000)173.00 170.51 -2.49 76.33 67.51 -8.83 238.02 $ 17,256,000 $ (820,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (16,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 0.34 0.96 -1.87 0.00 $ - $ (136,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.33 0.16 -0.17 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (89,000)1.33 0.63 -0.70 1.33 1.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (99,000)4.83 2.34 -2.49 4.17 1.00 4.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (181,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.17 -0.33 0.00 $ - $ (47,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.34 0.57 -1.10 0.00 $ - $ (80,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 1.00 7.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (8,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.52 1.38 -0.12 0.00 $ - $ (63,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 5.52 6.59 -0.57 0.00 $ - $ (81,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 27.83 5.52 25.61 -2.23 0.00 $ - $ (162,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (57,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.34 0.62 -1.21 0.00 $ - $ (172,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.34 1.81 -3.52 0.00 $ - $ (255,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 7.00 6.83 -0.17 3.33 3.12 -0.22 9.95 $ 5,185,000 $ (202,000)43.33 42.63 -0.70 19.33 17.81 -1.52 60.45 $ 8,583,000 $ (316,000)173.00 170.51 -2.49 76.33 70.44 -5.89 240.95 $ 17,469,000 $ (608,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 1.00 2.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.83 1.00 9.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 5.70 1.58 -0.08 0.00 $ - $ (44,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17 5.70 8.71 -0.46 0.00 $ - $ (65,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 5.70 34.20 -1.80 0.00 $ - $ (130,000) 0.33 0.16 -0.17 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (89,000)1.33 0.63 -0.70 1.33 1.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (99,000)4.83 2.34 -2.49 4.17 1.00 4.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (181,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.17 -0.33 0.00 $ - $ (47,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.34 0.57 -1.10 0.00 $ - $ (80,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 1.00 7.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (8,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 5.52 1.53 -0.13 0.00 $ - $ (70,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17 5.52 8.43 -0.73 0.00 $ - $ (104,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 5.52 33.12 -2.88 0.00 $ - $ (209,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 7.00 6.83 -0.17 3.33 3.20 -0.13 10.03 $ 5,229,000 $ (158,000)43.33 42.63 -0.70 19.33 17.88 -1.45 60.52 $ 8,593,000 $ (306,000)173.00 170.51 -2.49 76.33 71.42 -4.91 241.93 $ 17,540,000 $ (537,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.71 0.95 -0.39 0.00 $ - $ (55,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 0.71 2.01 -0.82 0.00 $ - $ (60,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.33 0.16 -0.17 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (89,000)1.33 0.63 -0.70 1.33 1.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (99,000)4.83 2.34 -2.49 4.17 1.00 4.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (181,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.34 0.17 -0.33 0.00 $ - $ (47,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.34 0.57 -1.10 0.00 $ - $ (80,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 1.00 7.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.34 0.06 -0.11 0.00 $ - $ (8,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 5.52 1.53 -0.13 0.00 $ - $ (70,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17 5.52 8.43 -0.73 0.00 $ - $ (104,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 5.52 33.12 -2.88 0.00 $ - $ (209,000) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - Safety B (Suspected Minor Injury)C (Possible Injury) Segments Intersections Segments Intersections Total Segments Intersections TotalTotal A (Suspected Serious Injury) Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Cost-Benefit Analysis C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at 11th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Extend turn lane at 16th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - Install medians and u-turns (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - RAB at NE Riddell Rd (SR 303 Corridor) GP Improvements C7 - WB BAT lane (Kitsap Way) Signal optimization and change in volumes C1 - RABs at ramp terminals (Kitsap Way) C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C39 - RABs between Shorewood and National (Kitsap Way) C23 - TSP C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C35 - Adaptive signal timing Express Service C8 - Add NBR turn pocket at Burwell/Naval C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C24 - Road diet (6th St) C20 - all-way ped phase at State and Park (Burwell St) C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) C6 - Westbound lane between National and 11th (Kitsap Way) C1 - RABs at ramp terminals (Kitsap Way) C35 - Adaptive signal timing C39 - RABs between Shorewood and National (Kitsap Way) C9 - RABs at Naval, State, Chester, Warren (Burwell St) C10 - RAB at Burwell/Callow C16 - NB HOV lane (SR 304) C24 - Road diet (6th St) C32 - add WB capacity (Burwell St) Signal optimization and change in volumes C29 - Extend turn lane at 6th (SR 303 Corridor) C29 - NB BAT lane (SR 303 Corridor) Signal optimization and change in volumes Signal optimization and change in volumes Support Parking - Option 2 (Signals) GP Improvements No Build Support Parking Relocate Parking Add Base Parking GP Improvements GP Improvements No Build Annual Crash Rate Build Annual Crash Rate Change No Build Annual Crash Rate KABC CMF Build Annual Crash Rate Change Annual Crash Rate Annual Cost of Crashes Change in Annual Cost of Crashes No Build Annual Crash Rate Build Annual Crash Rate Change No Build Annual Crash Rate KABC CMF Build Annual Crash Rate Change Annual Crash Rate Annual Cost of Crashes Change in Annual Cost of Crashes Annual Cost of Person-Delay Change in Annual Cost of Person-Delay Annual Cost of Crashes Change in Annual Cost of Crashes High Project Cost ($2021) Benefit/Cost Ratio 512.33 244.00 756.33 $ 2,798,000 46.00 18.00 64.00 $ 9,613,000 $ 17,694,000 $ 55,674,000 512.33 504.73 -7.60 244.00 227.17 -16.83 731.91 $ 2,708,000 $ (90,000)46.00 46.00 0.00 18.00 16.66 -1.34 62.66 $ 9,411,000 $ (202,000) $ (2,533,000) $ (1,946,000) $ 170,780,000 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 1.00 5.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (77,000) $ (152,000) $ 9,270,000 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 1.00 14.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (486,000) $ (191,000) $ 48,300,000 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.17 0.58 5.32 -3.85 0.00 $ - $ (14,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.58 0.29 -0.21 0.00 $ - $ (32,000) $ - $ (97,000) $ 13,950,000 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,160,000 0.00 14.50 6.90 -7.60 11.17 1.00 11.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (28,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,477,000 $ (397,000) $ 600,000 -1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.83 1.00 6.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 359,000 $ - $ 150,000 -2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.33 1.00 6.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,136,000) $ (127,000) $ 13,440,000 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 1.00 2.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (60,000) $ - $ 470,000 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.83 1.00 18.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 1.00 2.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,675,000 $ - $ 6,260,000 -0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (479,000) $ (8,000) $ 8,570,000 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (727,000) $ - $ 41,840,000 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.17 1.00 6.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 32,000 $ - $ 1,410,000 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.33 4.98 63.36 -12.98 0.00 $ - $ (48,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67 4.98 5.53 -1.13 0.00 $ - $ (169,000) $ (1,895,000) $ (493,000) $ 1,530,000 8.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.83 1.00 15.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,078,000 $ (484,000) $ 17,730,000 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,824,000) $ - $ 100,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (471,000) $ - 0.00 512.33 504.73 -7.60 244.00 227.71 -16.29 732.44 $ 2,711,000 $ (87,000)46.00 46.00 0.00 18.00 16.70 -1.30 62.70 $ 9,418,000 $ (196,000) $ (1,949,000) $ (1,727,000) $ 108,785,000 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 1.00 5.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (77,000) $ (152,000) $ 9,270,000 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,160,000 0.00 14.50 6.90 -7.60 11.17 1.00 11.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (28,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,477,000 $ (397,000) $ 600,000 -1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.83 1.00 6.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 359,000 $ - $ 150,000 -2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.33 1.00 6.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,136,000) $ (127,000) $ 13,440,000 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 1.00 2.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (60,000) $ - $ 470,000 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.83 1.00 18.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 1.00 2.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,675,000 $ - $ 6,260,000 -0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (479,000) $ (8,000) $ 8,570,000 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (727,000) $ - $ 41,840,000 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.17 1.00 6.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,410,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.83 4.98 79.54 -16.29 0.00 $ - $ (60,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 4.98 6.36 -1.30 0.00 $ - $ (195,000) $ (1,830,000) $ (561,000) $ 1,785,000 7.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.83 1.00 15.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,078,000 $ (484,000) $ 17,730,000 -0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,907,000) $ - $ 100,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (322,000) $ - 0.00 512.33 504.73 -7.60 244.00 219.62 -24.38 724.35 $ 2,680,000 $ (118,000)46.00 46.00 0.00 18.00 16.17 -1.83 62.17 $ 9,337,000 $ (276,000) $ (5,065,000) $ (1,517,000) $ 453,854,000 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.67 1.00 25.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (67,000) $ - $ 13,540,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.83 5.70 105.29 -5.54 0.00 $ - $ (20,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 5.70 7.92 -0.42 0.00 $ - $ (62,000) $ (348,000) $ (321,000) $ 1,200,000 3.08 14.50 6.90 -7.60 11.17 1.00 11.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (28,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,468,000 $ (397,000) $ 600,000 -1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.83 1.00 6.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (280,000) $ - $ 150,000 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.33 1.00 6.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (2,795,000) $ (127,000) $ 13,440,000 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 1.00 2.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 470,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.83 1.00 18.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 1.00 2.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 7,127,000 $ - $ 6,260,000 -1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,258,000) $ (8,000) $ 8,570,000 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (225,000) $ - $ 41,840,000 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.83 4.98 91.99 -18.84 0.00 $ - $ (69,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 4.98 6.92 -1.42 0.00 $ - $ (212,000) $ (3,590,000) $ (664,000) $ 2,210,000 10.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (5,072,000) $ - $ 365,570,000 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,087,000 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,114,000) $ - 512.33 504.73 -7.60 244.00 224.97 -19.03 729.71 $ 2,700,000 $ (98,000)46.00 46.00 0.00 18.00 16.56 -1.44 62.56 $ 9,397,000 $ (216,000) $ (5,034,000) $ (1,313,000) $ 881,920,000 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,233,000) $ (115,000) $ 14,420,000 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.67 0.96 4.48 -0.19 0.00 $ - $ (1,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.96 0.48 -0.02 0.00 $ - $ (3,000) $ (63,000) $ (4,000) $ 150,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,160,000 0.00 14.50 6.90 -7.60 11.17 1.00 11.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ (28,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,138,000 $ (397,000) $ 600,000 -1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.83 1.00 6.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.33 1.00 6.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (1,008,000) $ (127,000) $ 13,440,000 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 1.00 2.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (53,000) $ - $ 470,000 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.83 1.00 18.83 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 1.00 2.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ 1,432,000 $ - $ 6,260,000 -0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (424,000) $ (8,000) $ 8,570,000 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (726,000) $ - $ 41,840,000 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.17 1.00 6.17 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (693,000) $ - $ 1,410,000 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.83 4.98 91.99 -18.84 0.00 $ - $ (69,000)0.00 0.00 0.00 8.33 4.98 6.92 -1.42 0.00 $ - $ (212,000) $ (2,232,000) $ (664,000) $ 2,210,000 7.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (490,000) $ - $ 785,240,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ - $ - $ (683,000) OVERALL UNKNOWNO (No Apparent Injury) Total Segments Intersections TotalSegmentsIntersections Appendix M Preferred Alternative Analysis Results Preferred Alternative Screening Study Goal Area Performance Measures Performance Compared to 2050 No Build Key Findings Travel Time Travel Time Reliability Average Score Person hours of delay - general purpose Person hours of delay - Transit Average Score Number of overall crashes Number of serious injury and fatal crashes Average Score Number of people who can walk/bike to NBK-BR or P&Rs under low stress conditions Number of high-quality travel choices in the study area Safe and Comfortable Walking and Biking Options Average Score Parking utilization Parking violations City parking revenue City parking enforcement Accessibility to parking for Base workers Tracking the "Bremerton Shuffle" Surface parking/land use impacts Average Score * Road diet projects at 6th Street and Naval Ave provide the largest reduction in overall crashes, and in serious injury and fatal crashes. * Roundabouts and adaptive signal timing provide additional crash reductions. * Mobility hubs at 2 locations will increase high quality travel choices * Improvements to sidewalks within 10-minute walkshed will increase low-street options for accessing NBK-BR by foot * Added bike lanes will increase low-stress options for accessing NBK-BR by bike * Assumes residential only parking permits and paid parking downtown. * Assumes a substantial decrease in surface parking, as existing parking is replaced outside downtown, and a portion of current downtown parking is replaced by redeveloping City-owned surface lots to more active land-uses. It also doesn't account for differences in the user experience of being able to park near or on NBK versus park and ride/transit access. * Assumes a "Commuter Engagement and Incentive Platform" where major employers in the study area would participate in use of a commuter engagement and incentive platform to enhance mobility options and incentives for commuters. Preferred Alternative * TSP included in No Build and all Build Alternatives * This alternative assumes 1,000 vehicles will be removed from traffic inbound to downtown during the AM peak hour and from traffic outbound of downtown during the PM peak hour. Assume they instead park outside downtown and take transit in. * Roundabout at Naval Ave/6th Street helps offset some of the increased delays resulting from road diet along 6th Street * General purpose and transit travel times improve due to reduced volumes. * Transit travel times are improved by express bus service. * Impacts to travel time reliability are similar to those associated with travel time. * General purpose mobility improves during the AM and PM peak hour due to reduced general purpose vehicle volumes. * Modest improvements to mobility due to increased ridership. This is because the reduction of network vehicles results in a demand for transit, thus increasing the number of transit users in the analysis. This assumes bus service and bus stop locations remain the same as existing. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Travel Times and Reliability: Improve travel times to/from downtown Bremerton and make travel times to/from downtown Bremerton more predictable. Mobility: Increase the transportation system's ability to efficiently move all people and goods. Parking: Parking system supports a vibrant, attractive and user- friendly Downtown with thriving neighborhood districts and attractive residential neighborhoods. Active Transportation: Improve accessibility, connectivity and increase safe ped/bike options to decrease percent of trips made by driving alone. Safety: Improve safety and reduce serious injury and fatal crashes. Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening Arterial (Direction)From To Distance (miles)TT Speed (mph)Corridor TT Speed (mph)Notes AM GP Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:07:10 12 0:03:40 23 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume and signal timing optimization. 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:04:20 15 0:02:50 24 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume, signal timing optimization, and RAB at Warren Ave (SR 303)/11th Street. 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:03:40 15 0:03:10 18 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume and signal timing optimization. RAB at Naval Ave/6th St offsets road diet along 6th St Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:03:50 15 0:03:00 19 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume and signal timing optimization. SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:10:00 17 0:07:50 22 Reduced travel time due to SR 303 Corridor Study projects. SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:03:40 15 0:02:50 19 Reduced travel time due to optimized timing and reduction of northbound volume. 0:32:40 0:23:20 Change from No Build 0%29% Score 1 3 AM Transit Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:09:30 9 0:05:30 15 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume and signal timing optimization. 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:05:40 12 0:04:10 16 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume, signal timing optimization, and RAB at Warren Ave (SR 303)/11th Street. 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:07:50 7 0:05:10 11 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume and signal timing optimization. RAB at Naval Ave/6th St offsets road diet along 6th St Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:07:10 8 0:05:20 11 Reduced travel time due to reduction of eastbound volume and signal timing optimization. SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:14:50 12 0:10:20 17 Reduced travel time due to SR 303 Corridor Study projects. SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:05:00 11 0:04:10 13 Reduced travel time due to optimized timing and reduction of northbound volume. 0:50:00 0:34:40 Change from No Build 0%31% Score 1 3 PM GP Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:06:10 14 0:04:00 21 Reduced travel time due to reduced westbound volume and signal timing optimization. 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:05:10 13 0:04:10 16 Reduced travel time due to reduced westbound volume and signal timing optimization. 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:03:20 17 0:04:20 13 Increased travel time due to 6th Street road diet. RAB at Naval Ave/6th St helps offset road diet along 6th St Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:04:10 14 0:03:50 15 Reduced travel time due to reduced westbound volume and signal timing optimization. SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:12:20 14 0:09:40 18 Reduced travel time due to SR 303 Corridor Study projects. SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:03:10 17 0:02:40 20 Reduced travel time due to reduced southbound volume and signal timing optimization. 0:34:20 0:28:40 Change from No Build 0%17% Score 1 2 PM Transit Corridor Travel Time Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:07:40 11 0:05:30 15 Reduced travel time due to reduced westbound volume and signal timing optimization. 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:06:30 10 0:05:20 12 Reduced travel time due to reduced westbound volume and signal timing optimization. 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:08:10 7 0:06:50 8 Reduced travel time due to reduced westbound volume and signal timing optimization. RAB at Naval Ave/6th St helps offset road diet along 6th St Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:07:00 8 0:05:50 10 Reduced travel time due to reduced westbound volume and signal timing optimization. SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:17:20 10 0:10:10 17 Reduced travel time due to SR 303 Corridor Study projects, including the northbound BAT lane. SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:03:30 15 0:03:10 17 Reduced travel time due to reduced southbound volume and signal timing optimization. 0:50:10 0:36:50 Change from No Build 0%27% Score 1 3 No Build Transit Total GP Total GP Total Transit Total Preferred Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening Arterial (Direction)From To Number of lanes (directional) Free Flow Speed (FFS) Actual Speed Arterial LOS V/C V/C rounded Travel Rate = (1/ Actual speed) Recurring Delay = (t-(1/FFS)) Incident Delay (Du) = (IDAP lookup) TTIm AM GP Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 12 C 0.71 0.70 0.085 0.057 1.12E-03 3.03 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 15 C 0.71 0.70 0.065 0.032 1.12E-03 1.97 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 15 C 0.71 0.70 0.065 0.024 1.12E-03 1.63 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 15 D 0.81 0.80 0.067 0.027 2.09E-03 1.73 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 17 D 0.81 0.80 0.057 0.022 2.09E-03 1.69 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 15 D 0.81 0.80 0.069 0.036 1.64E-03 2.12 Average 2.03 Change from No Build 0% Change Type NO CHANGE Score 1 AM Transit Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 9 C 0.71 0.70 0.113 0.085 1.12E-03 4.00 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 12 C 0.71 0.70 0.085 0.052 1.12E-03 2.57 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 7 C 0.71 0.70 0.138 0.098 1.12E-03 3.46 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 8 D 0.81 0.80 0.125 0.085 2.09E-03 3.19 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 12 D 0.81 0.80 0.085 0.050 2.09E-03 2.47 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 11 D 0.81 0.80 0.094 0.061 1.64E-03 2.88 Average 3.09 Change from No Build 0% Change Type NO CHANGE Score 1 PM GP Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 14 E 0.91 0.90 0.073 0.045 5.10E-03 2.75 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 13 E 0.91 0.90 0.078 0.044 5.10E-03 2.47 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 17 D 0.81 0.80 0.059 0.018 2.09E-03 1.51 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 14 D 0.81 0.80 0.073 0.033 2.09E-03 1.88 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 14 F 1.00 1.00 0.071 0.035 1.99E-02 2.57 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 17 C 0.71 0.70 0.059 0.026 1.12E-03 1.83 Average 2.17 Change from No Build 0% Change Type NO CHANGE Score 1 PM Transit Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 11 E 0.91 0.90 0.091 0.063 5.10E-03 3.37 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 10 E 0.91 0.90 0.098 0.064 5.10E-03 3.06 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 7 D 0.81 0.80 0.144 0.104 2.09E-03 3.63 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 8 D 0.81 0.80 0.122 0.082 2.09E-03 3.12 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 10 F 1.00 1.00 0.099 0.064 1.99E-02 3.38 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 15 C 0.71 0.70 0.066 0.032 1.12E-03 2.01 Average 3.10 Change from No Build 0% Change Type NO CHANGE Score 1 No Build Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening Arterial (Direction)From To Number of lanes (directional) Free Flow Speed (FFS) AM GP Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score AM Transit Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 2 35 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 2 30 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 2 25 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2 28 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 3 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score PM GP Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score PM Transit Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 2 35 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 2 30 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 2 25 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2 28 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 2 30 Average Change from No Build Change Type Score Number of lanes (directional) Actual Speed Arterial LOS V/C V/C rounded Travel Rate = (1/ Actual speed) Recurring Delay = (t-(1/FFS)) Incident Delay (Du) = (IDAP lookup) TTIm 2 23 D 0.81 0.80 0.044 0.015 2.09E-03 1.60 2 24 B 0.61 0.60 0.043 0.009 6.00E-04 1.29 2 18 D 0.81 0.80 0.056 0.016 2.09E-03 1.44 2 19 D 0.81 0.80 0.052 0.013 2.09E-03 1.37 2 22 D 0.81 0.80 0.045 0.010 2.09E-03 1.33 3 19 D 0.81 0.80 0.053 0.020 1.36E-03 1.64 1.45 29% IMPROVE TTR 3 2 15 C 0.71 0.70 0.065 0.037 1.12E-03 2.33 2 16 B 0.61 0.60 0.063 0.029 6.00E-04 1.88 2 11 D 0.81 0.80 0.091 0.051 2.09E-03 2.31 2 11 C 0.71 0.70 0.093 0.053 1.12E-03 2.36 2 17 D 0.81 0.80 0.059 0.024 2.09E-03 1.74 3 13 C 0.71 0.70 0.078 0.045 5.28E-04 2.37 2.17 30% IMPROVE TTR 3 2 21 D 0.81 0.80 0.048 0.019 2.09E-03 1.74 2 16 D 0.81 0.80 0.063 0.029 2.09E-03 1.93 2 13 E 0.91 0.90 0.076 0.036 5.10E-03 2.02 2 15 D 0.81 0.80 0.067 0.027 2.09E-03 1.73 3 18 E 0.91 0.90 0.055 0.020 4.01E-03 1.69 2 20 C 0.71 0.70 0.050 0.017 1.12E-03 1.54 1.78 18% IMPROVE GP 2 2 15 D 0.81 0.80 0.065 0.037 2.09E-03 2.36 2 12 D 0.81 0.80 0.080 0.047 2.09E-03 2.45 2 8 F 1.00 1.00 0.120 0.080 1.99E-02 3.49 2 10 E 0.91 0.90 0.102 0.062 5.10E-03 2.68 3 17 E 0.91 0.90 0.058 0.023 4.01E-03 1.77 2 17 C 0.71 0.70 0.059 0.026 1.12E-03 1.83 2.43 22% IMPROVE TTR 3 Preferred Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening GP AVO 85%1.12 85%1.12 HOV AVO 15% 2.2 15% 2.2 Arterial (Direction)From To Distance (miles) Free Flow TT Corridor TT # of Vehicles # or Persons Person Hours of Delay Corridor TT # of Vehicles # or Persons Person Hours of Delay (per mile) Notes AM GP Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:02:20 0:07:10 1,770 1,982 160 0:03:40 1,510 1,691 38 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:02:10 0:04:20 830 930 34 0:02:50 850 952 11 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:03:40 1,130 1,266 28 0:03:10 820 918 13 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:03:50 1,130 1,266 32 0:03:00 820 918 10 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:06:10 0:10:00 1,170 1,310 84 0:07:50 930 1,042 29 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:01:50 0:03:40 1,740 2,230 68 0:02:50 1,300 1,456 24 405 124 Change from No Build 0%69% Score 1 3 AM Transit Kitsap Way (Eastbound)SR 3 NB Ramps 11th Ave 1.40 0:02:20 0:09:30 360 43 0:05:30 610 32 11th Ave (Eastbound)Kitsap Way SR 303 1.11 0:02:10 0:05:40 260 15 0:04:10 460 15 6th St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:07:50 125 11 0:05:10 175 8 Burwell St (Eastbound)N Callow Ave SR 303 0.95 0:02:20 0:07:10 475 38 0:05:20 910 46 SR 303 (Southbound)NE Riddell Rd Burwell St 2.91 0:06:10 0:14:50 520 75 0:10:20 735 51 SR 304 (Northbound)Charleston Beach Rd W Burwell St 0.89 0:01:50 0:05:00 520 27 0:04:10 930 36 210 189 Change from No Build 0%10% Score 1 2 PM GP Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:02:20 0:06:10 2,210 2,475 158 0:04:00 1,960 2,195 61 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:02:10 0:05:10 1,330 1,490 74 0:04:10 1,350 1,512 50 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:03:20 1,390 1,557 26 0:04:20 1,060 1,187 40 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:04:10 1,120 1,254 38 0:03:50 810 907 23 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:06:10 0:12:20 1,760 1,971 203 0:09:40 1,530 1,714 100 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:01:50 0:03:10 1,520 1,950 43 0:02:40 1,050 1,176 16 543 290 Change from No Build 0%47% Score 1 3 PM Transit Kitsap Way (Westbound)11th Ave SR 3 NB Ramps 1.40 0:02:20 0:07:40 360 32 0:05:30 610 32 11th Ave (Westbound)SR 303 Kitsap Way 1.11 0:02:10 0:06:30 260 19 0:05:20 460 24 6th St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:08:10 125 12 0:06:50 175 13 Burwell St (Westbound)SR 303 N Callow Ave 0.95 0:02:20 0:07:00 475 37 0:05:50 910 53 SR 303 (Northbound)Burwell St NE Riddell Rd 2.91 0:06:10 0:17:20 520 97 0:10:10 735 49 SR 304 (Southbound)Burwell St Charleston Beach Rd W 0.89 0:01:50 0:03:30 520 14 0:03:10 930 21 211 192 Change from No Build 0%9% Score 1 1 Transit mobility improves due to express transit service. Mobility improves due to reduced volumes and signal timing optimization. RAB at Naval Ave/6th St helps offset road diet along 6th St. Reduction in transit travel times due to express bus service are offset by huge increase of 1,500 in transit ridership. Preferred Alternative Mobility improves due to reduced volumes and signal timing optimization. No Build Total Total Total Total Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening Total Crash CMF KABC Crash CMF Total Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedKABC Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedTotal Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes Alternative Improvements C1 1.00 0.34 1.00 2, 3 0.34 2, 3 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) C2 1.00 0.34 1.00 104, 105 0.34 104, 105 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) C6 1.00 0.71 C7 C8 0.96 1.00 C9 1.00 0.34 C10 0.58 0.58 C16 C20 --Add all-way pedestrian phase (Virginia DOT - ped crashes only) C21 C23 0.87 0.95 C24 --Added below 6th St road diet - 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 - 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 10.9 fewer annual crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 11th St road diet C26 -- C27 C29 11th RAB 1.00 0.34 1.00 22 0.34 22 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) Ridell RAB 1.00 0.34 1.00 28 0.34 28 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) Median treatments 0.70 -0.70 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Add median intersection treatment (ODOT H1) Furneys porkchop 0.65 -0.65 29 Add channelized right turn with median (ODOT H6) C31 C32 -- C35 0.83 0.92 0.83 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45 0.92 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45 Adaptive signal timing C38 - added below Burwell St adaptive signals --See adaptive signal timing improvement above (C35) 6th St road diet 11th/Callow 11 11 1.72 fewer annual crashes (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 13th and Sylvan corridors C39 1.00 0.34 C40 Road diet on Naval C41 1.00 14 0.34 14 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) No Build Preferred Alternative Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening Total Crash CMF KABC Crash CMF Total Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedKABC Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedTotal Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes No Build Preferred Alternative Intersections 2014-2019 Crash Rate 2014-2019 KABC Crash Rate Total Crash CMF Total Crash Rate KABC Crash CMF KABC Crash Rate Total Crash CMF Total Crash Rate KABC Crash CMF KABC Crash Rate Notes 2 7 1 1.00 6.50 1.00 1.17 1.00 6.50 0.34 0.40 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 3 9 3 1.00 8.50 1.00 3.00 1.00 8.50 0.34 1.02 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 4 6 2 1.00 5.67 1.00 1.67 0.83 4.70 0.92 1.53 Adaptive signal timing 5 5 2 1.00 4.83 1.00 1.50 0.83 4.01 0.92 1.38 Adaptive signal timing 6 6 2 1.00 6.17 1.00 2.00 0.83 5.12 0.92 1.84 Adaptive signal timing 7 7 2 1.00 7.33 1.00 2.17 0.83 6.09 0.92 1.99 , Adaptive signal timing 8 6 2 1.00 6.33 1.00 2.00 0.83 5.26 0.92 1.84 Adaptive signal timing 10 8 2 1.00 8.33 1.00 1.83 0.83 6.92 0.92 1.69 Adaptive signal timing 12 5 2 1.00 5.33 1.00 1.83 0.83 4.43 0.92 1.69 Adaptive signal timing 13 3 1 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 2.49 0.92 0.92 Adaptive signal timing 14 8 3 1.00 7.50 1.00 2.50 1.00 7.50 0.34 0.85 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 16 2 1 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.83 1.66 0.92 0.46 Adaptive signal timing 17 9 1 1.00 8.50 1.00 1.00 0.83 7.06 0.92 0.92 Adaptive signal timing 21 4 1 1.00 4.33 1.00 0.67 0.83 3.60 0.92 0.61 Adaptive signal timing 22 9 2 1.00 9.00 1.00 2.17 1.00 9.00 0.34 0.74 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 23 7 3 1.00 7.17 1.00 2.50 0.83 5.95 0.92 2.30 Adaptive signal timing 24 4 1 1.00 4.33 1.00 1.17 0.83 3.60 0.92 1.07 Adaptive signal timing 25 14 4 1.00 13.50 1.00 3.67 0.83 11.21 0.64 2.36 Adaptive signal timing 26 13 5 1.00 13.17 1.00 4.50 0.83 10.93 0.64 2.90 Adaptive signal timing 27 4 1 1.00 3.83 1.00 1.33 0.83 3.18 0.64 0.86 Adaptive signal timing 28 1 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.04 Signal to multi-lane RAB, AADT greater than 18,000 (WSDOT) 30 12 4 1.00 11.83 1.00 3.67 0.83 9.82 0.92 3.37 Adaptive signal timing 31 4 2 1.00 4.33 1.00 1.67 0.83 3.60 0.92 1.53 Adaptive signal timing 32 2 1 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.66 0.92 0.77 Adaptive signal timing 34 1 0 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.33 35 11 2 1.00 11.33 1.00 1.67 0.83 -0.92 1.53 Adaptive signal timing 36 6 1 1.00 6.17 1.00 1.33 0.83 5.12 0.92 1.23 Adaptive signal timing 37 7 2 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.83 0.83 5.81 0.92 1.69 Adaptive signal timing 38 3 1 1.00 2.67 1.00 0.67 0.83 2.21 0.92 0.61 Adaptive signal timing 44 1 0 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.33 0.83 0.55 0.92 0.31 Adaptive signal timing 45 0 0 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.00 0.83 0.14 0.92 0.00 Adaptive signal timing 47 4 1 1.00 3.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 3.67 1.00 0.67 104 5 1 1.00 4.83 1.00 1.17 0.83 4.01 0.92 1.07 Adaptive signal timing 105 10 4 1.00 10.33 1.00 4.17 0.83 8.58 0.92 3.83 Adaptive signal timing Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening Total Crash CMF KABC Crash CMF Total Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedKABC Crash CMF Intersections ImpactedTotal Crash CMF Intersections Impacted KABC Crash CMF Intersections Impacted Notes No Build Preferred Alternative 135 5 0 1.00 4.50 1.00 0.33 1.00 4.50 1.00 0.33 400 2 1 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.50 1.00 0.67 401 3 0 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.17 1.00 2.50 1.00 0.17 Additional change 6th St road diet -10.9 -10.9 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 11th St road diet 11th/Callow -1.72 -1.72 (Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 13th and Sylvan corridors Naval Ave road diet -5 -5 (approximate based on Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan) 211 58 211 58 156 28 Overall CMF 0.74 0.48 Change from No Build 0%0%26%52% Score 1 1 3 3 Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Screening No Build Performance Measure Metric Parking Utilization Project does not increase the availability of parking or transit options or increase in consistency between parking regulations and parking turnover or duration. Project has a substantial increase availability of parking or transit options or increase in consistency between parking regulations and parking turnover or duration. Score 1 3 Parking Violations The project does not result in a decrease in the violation rate The project results in a substantial decrease in the violation rate Score 1 3 City Parking Revenue The project does not increase parking revenue The project results in a modest increase in parking revenue Score 1 2 City Parking Enforcement The project does not enhance the City's parking technology for enforcement The project results in a substantial improvement in the City's use of technology for parking enforcement Score 1 3 Accessibility to Parking for Base Workers The project does not increase the amount of available parking for shipyard workers but moves locations of parking and improves congestion The project results in modest increase in available parking for shipyard workers and moves locations of parking and improves congestion Score 1 2 Tracking the "Bremerton Shuffle"The project does not change the number of vehicles that typically are moved to evade time limits The project results in a substantial decrease in vehicles being moved to evade time limits Score 1 3 Surface Parking/Land Use Impacts The project results in a neutral or modest decease in surface parking. The projects results in a substantial decrease in surface parking. Score 1 3 Preferred Alternative Key Assumptions: Includes residential-only parking permits and paid parking downtown. Will redevelop City-owned surface lots and pursue redevelopment of exisitng surface lots to more active land uses. Commuter Engagement and Incentive Platform: Major employers in the study area would participate in use of a commuter engagement and incentive platform to enhance mobility options and incentives for commuters. Appendix N Preferred Alternative Phasing Matrix Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Preferred Alternative Project Phasing City Goals Cost Level Ease of Implementation Funding 3 = Both 3 = Low (<$500k)3 = (0-6 years)3 = Funding Available 2 = Livability 2= Medium ($500k-$5M)2 = (6-20 yr)2 = Funding Identified 1 = Base Accessibility 1= High (>$5M) 1 = (20-30 yr) 1 = Funding Not Identified City Capital Projects (CC) C40 Naval Ave Road Re-channelization - revises lane configuration on Naval Ave to include a 2-way center turn lane and bike lanes Capital City of Bremerton $ 10,400,000 3 1 3 3 10 CC-1 C24 6th St Road Re-channelization - revises lane configuration on 6th St to include a 2-way center turn lane and bike lanes Capital City of Bremerton $ 3,500,000 3 2 3 3 11 CC-2 AT15 Add a shared-use path on south side of 1st St between Naval Ave and Callow Ave Capital City of Bremerton $ 300,000 3 3 3 2 11 CC-3 AT5 Within the 10-minute walksheds of base gates, upgrade and/or add sidewalks; upgrade marked and unmarked crossings to be ADA compliant Capital City of Bremerton $ 66,200,000 3 1 3 3 10 CC-4 C20 Change signal timing to include all-way pedestrian phase at State St/Burwell St, Park Ave/Burwell St, and Pacific Ave/Burwell St intersections Capital City of Bremerton $ 25,000 1 3 3 3 10 C35 Adaptive signal timing at 19 signalized intersections along Kitsap Way, 6th St, and 11th St Capital City of Bremerton $ 5,100,000 1 1 3 3 8 C38 Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan. Includes adaptive signal timing along Burwell St and pedestrian crossing treatments at 6th St/Hewitt Ave and Burwell St/Washington Ave Capital City of Bremerton $ 2,900,000 1 2 3 3 9 CC-6 AT48 Add bike facilities on Shorewood Dr to connect to Kitsap Way and to downtown Bremerton. Navy should consider improving path from Grays Harbor Court to Shorewood Dr to provide connection for Jackson Park to City facilities. Capital City of Bremerton NBK-BR $ 4,900,000 2 2 3 2 9 CC-7 C31 Pedestrian/bike improvements within 5 minute walkshed of park and rides or transit hubs (existing and proposed)Capital City of Bremerton Kitsap Transit $ 6,600,000 1 1 3 2 7 CC-8 AT27 Improve the sidewalk conditions in the neighborhood west of Charleston Blvd Capital City of Bremerton/ Kitsap County $ 8,000,000 2 1 3 2 8 CC-9 AT2 Construct a mobility hub at the southwest corner of Park Ave and 4th St for first/last mile connections Capital City of Bremerton Kitsap Transit $ 1,500,000 3 2 2 1 8 AT55 Construct bike lanes on Park Ave from 4th St to 6th St Capital City of Bremerton $ 125,000 3 3 3 2 11 C26 Traffic Management Center that includes IT infrastructure to support adaptive signals (e.g. Cloud based technology)Capital City of Bremerton $ 2,300,000 1 2 2 1 6 CC-11 C41 Convert signal at Naval Ave/6th St to a roundabout Capital City of Bremerton $ 7,500,000 1 1 2 1 5 CC-12 C29 Build projects proposed in SR 303 Corridor Study - prioritize capacity projects including roundadbouts and BAT lane Capital City of Bremerton Kitsap County Kitsap Transit $ 120,000,000 3 1 1 2 7 CC-13 City Policy Projects (CP) AT1 Support Kitsap Transit's redevelopment of the Gateway Park and Ride property located at 6th St and Montgomery Ave in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Charleston Area-wide Planning Study Policy City of Bremerton Kitsap Transit $ 1,500,000 2 2 3 1 8 CP-1 PM15 Implement paid on-street parking in the downtown subarea Policy City of Bremerton $ 50,000 2 3 2 2 9 CP-2 PM2 Implement permit only parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to and surrounding NBK-BR Policy City of Bremerton $ 50,000 2 3 2 2 9 CP-3 Naval Base Kitsap - Bremeton Capital Projects (BC) AT19 Install secure covered bike parking inside NBK-BR, PSNS, and outside gates Capital NBK-BR $ 200,000 3 3 3 2 11 BC-1 B3 Improve or manage vehicle input at NBK-BR gates in the AM peak to decrease queuing on City streets Policy NBK-BR $ 600,000 1 2 3 2 8 BC-2 B18 Allow output at Montgomery gate during AM peak hours and allow input during PM peak hours Policy NBK-BR TBD 1 1 3 2 7 BC-3 C14 Study the need for a new off-ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 as part of the Navy’s planning for any future NBK-BR modifications that triggers this project Capital NBK-BR WSDOT, City of Bremerton $ 1,000,000 1 2 3 1 7 BC-4 B7 Maximize the efficient use of parking stalls on NBK-BR installation and construct additional parking Policy/Capital NBK-BR $ 25,200,000 1 1 1 1 4 BC-5 Naval Base Kitsap - Bremeton Policy Projects (BP) CTR1 Maintain telework options currently available to DOD employees Policy NBK-BR TBD 3 3 3 2 11 BP-1 CTR3 Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker/Driver Bus program by making changes to reimbursement process and easing use requirements Policy NBK-BR City of Bremerton, Kitsap Transit TBD 3 1 3 1 8 BP-2 Kitsap Transit Capital Projects (KC) PC6 Build the park and rides outlined in the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan, including the Silverdale Park and Ride north of Bremerton and the West Bremerton Transit Center/Park and Ride at Auto Center Way Capital Kitsap Transit $ 53,200,000 3 1 2 2 8 KC-1 PC4 Build projects in the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan that provide a reliable non-auto travel mode, such as new circulator route in Bremerton, new express bus service between Tacoma and Bremerton, high-capacity transit on SR 303, new on-demand ride zones in Bremerton, multimodal hubs, and additional park and ride lots Capital Kitsap Transit $ 48,000,000 3 1 2 2 8 KC-2 PC3 Build park and rides in the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan at the Puget Sound Industrial Center and in South Kitsap; look for opportunities to add parking beyond planned 520 parking stalls Capital Kitsap Transit City of Bremerton $ 24,200,000 3 1 2 1 7 KC-3 Kitsap Transit Policy Projects (KP) CTR11 Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker/Driver Bus program by using technology and active management to optimize routes and by adding "late" routes and/or alternative shift routes Policy Kitsap Transit NBR-BR TBD 3 3 3 1 10 KP-1 CTR12 Study increased foot-ferry capacity between Bremerton and Port Orchard to align with the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan Policy Kitsap Transit City of Bremerton, City of Port Orchard TBD 3 2 3 1 9 KP-2 CTR4 Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income Policy Kitsap Transit TBD 3 2 3 1 9 KP-3 T8 Shuttle service between park and rides and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency)Policy Kitsap Transit NBK-BR TBD 3 2 2 2 9 KP-4 T6 More bus routes and greater frequency (10-15 minute headways) to NBK- BR, including early moring and late evening routes Policy Kitsap Transit NBK-BR TBD 3 2 2 1 8 KP-5 PM3 Establish a transportation management association. This is typically a nonprofit established as a public-private partnership with funding primarily from major employers. Funding is used to support expansion of commuter transportation options as alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles through education, programs, and incentives. Policy Kitsap Transit City of Bremerton, NBK- BR, Port of Bremerton, WSDOT $ 500,000 2 2 2 1 7 KP-6 Washington State Capital Projects (WC) C1 Build intersection improvements at SR 3/Kitsap Way as recommended by the West Kitsap Way study Capital WSDOT City of Bremerton $ - 1 3 2 1 7 WC-1 C2 Convert stop sign and signals at SR 3/W Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange to roundabouts Capital WSDOT City of Bremerton $ 13,700,000 1 1 2 1 5 WC-2 Washington State Policy Projects (WP) O6 Better enforcement of HOV lanes Policy Washington State Patrol City of Bremerton TBD 1 1 3 1 6 WP-1 AT14 Support planning efforts for SR 3 in Gorst Policy WSDOT City of Bremerton, NBK- BR, Kitsap County, Port of Bremerton, Port Orchard TBD 1 1 3 2 7 WP-2 CC-10 Cost Estimate Total Score Recommended Phasing Order CC-5 Capital Improvement or Policy Owner Agency Partner Agencies Project Code Project Description Appendix O Project One‐Pagers Page 1 Phase CC-1 Project Description Naval Ave Road Re-channelization - revises lane configuration on Naval Ave to include a 2-way center turn lane and bike lanes Project Code C40 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects Precedes roundabout at Naval Ave/6th St as part of project C41 Location Naval Ave between 15th St and 1st St Project Length 0.7 miles Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $10,400,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Reduce 4 lane section to 3 lane section with center left-turn lane and add bike lanes  Project limits are 1st St to 15th St  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards  Does not include roundabout at Naval Ave/6th St (project C41) Project Benefits  Road diets improve safety by reducing rear-end and left-turn crashes due to the dedicated left-turn lane  Provides opportunity to install bicycle lanes with reclaimed lane width  Makes direct connection between NBK Naval Gate and the bike network Project Issues and Risks  Strong buy-in from elected officials and community members is beneficial  Project has potential to reduce travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for vehicles and transit  Vehicle input at the NBK-BR Naval gate may cause queueing on Naval Ave that could cause congestion in the AM peak hour (5:30am to 6:30am). See project B3. Queueing outside of the AM peak hour is not anticipated. The City believes the overall benefits of the project outweight this risk. Notes  Shovel ready - design, ROW, NEPA already funded Page 2 Phase CC-2 Project Description 6th St Road Re-channelization - revises lane configuration on 6th St to include a 2-way center turn lane and bike lanes Project Code C24 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects Precedes roundabout at Naval Ave/6th St as part of project C41 Location 6th St between Cambrian Ave and Washington Ave Project Length 1.5 miles Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $3,500,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Reduce 4 lane section to 3 lane section with center left-turn lane and add bike lanes  Project limits are Cambrian Ave to Washington Ave  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards  Does not include roundabout at Naval Ave/6th St (project C41) Project Benefits  Road diets improve safety by reducing rear-end and left-turn crashes due to the dedicated left-turn lane  Provides opportunity to install bicycle lanes with reclaimed lane width  Makes east-west bike network connection between Downtown and Kitsap Way  Protected bike lanes provide a safer biking environment  Providing bike lanes on 6th St provide a key east-west connection in downtown Bremerton Project Issues and Risks  Strong buy-in from elected officials and community members is beneficial  Project has potential to reduce travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for vehicles and transit  Vehicle input at the NBK-BR Naval gate may cause queueing onto 6th Street that could cause congestion in the AM peak hour (5:30am to 6:30am). See project B3. Queueing outside of the AM peak hour is not anticipated. The City believes the overall benefits of the project outweight this risk. Notes  Identified in City of Bremerton 6-year TIP (2023 to 2028) Page 3 Phase CC-3 Project Description Add a shared-use path on south side of 1st St between Naval Ave and Callow Ave Project Code AT15 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location 1st St between Naval Ave and Callow Ave Project Length 0.3 miles Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $300,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  1st Street would become one-way for vehicles  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated as part of design of the project, per City construction standards Project Benefits  Protected bike lanes provide a safer biking environment  Protected bike lanes along 1st St would provide an easier and safer route for bicyclists travelling to and from NBK-BR and would encourage mode shift to biking Project Issues and Risks  Additional outreach, design, and estimating are required for the final configuration for bicycle facilities Notes  Potential to extend east to State Street Page 4 Phase CC-4 Project Description Within the 10-minute walksheds of base gates, upgrade and/or add sidewalks; upgrade marked and unmarked crossings to be ADA compliant Project Code AT5 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location Downtown Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $66,200,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Total cost for improving 136,700 linear feet of sidewalks that are in fair/marginal or poor/very poor conditions. Does not include sidewalks in neighborhood west of Charleston Blvd (AT27)  Suggest breaking this into smaller packages of $775k - $1M  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards Project Benefits  Would benefit approximately 11,500 pedestrians who currently walk onto NBK-BR every day.  Consistent with City plans and ongoing City efforts to make crosswalks and sidewalks ADA compliant  Improved sidewalk conditions and connectivity provide a safer walking environment and encourage mode shift to walking Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes  Sidewalk Program identified in City of Bremerton 6-year TIP (2023 to 2028) Page 5 Phase CC-5 Project Description Change signal timing to include all-way pedestrian phase at State St/Burwell St, Park Ave/Burwell St, and Pacific Ave/Burwell St intersections Project Code C20 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects Can occur with adaptive signal timing updates on Burwell St as part of C38 Location State St/Burwell St, Park Ave/Burwell St, and Pacific Ave/Burwell St Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $25,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Cost estimate assumes City hires a contractor to adjust the signal timing Project Benefits  Improves pedestrian safety by reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles turning into crosswalks Project Issues and Risks  Design should incorporate Accessible Pedestrian Signal elements to assist visually impaired pedestrians who traditionaly rely on traffic sounds to decide when and where to cross  Project has potential to reduce travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility by reducing the amount of green time available to vehicle and transit Notes  Education efforts and permanent signage required Page 6 Phase CC-5 Project Description Adaptive signal timing at 19 signalized intersections along Kitsap Way, 6th St, and 11th St Project Code C35 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location Kitsap Way, 6th St, and 11th St Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $5,100,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Adaptive signal timing provides flexibility for improved traffic operations and optimizing efficiency of existing roadway capacity. Adaptive signals change without human interaction and automatically adjust the length of green time given to each movement at an intersection based on what the traffic conditions need. This enables the traffic signals to better serve all people (vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists) moving through the intersection or along a roadway. This increases capacity of the intersection without changing the channelization and improves average performance metrics (travel time, control delay, emissions, and fuel consumption) by 10 percent or more.  Project would likely improve travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility Project Issues and Risks  Adapative signal systems need to be designed to ensure that pedestrians receive adequate walk time to safely cross the street. Notes  Signal system upgrade funding in 6 year TIP  Adaptive signal timing along Burwell St already included in the TIP and as part of project C38  Adaptive signal timing along SR 303 already included as part of project C29 Page 7 Phase CC-6 Project Description Build projects proposed in Bremerton Strategic Road Safety Plan, per updated plan (2022). Includes adaptive signal timing along Burwell St and pedestrian crossing treatments at 6th St/Hewitt Ave and Burwell St/Washington Ave Project Code C38 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects Can occur with all-way pedestrian phasing on Burwell St as part of C20 Location Burwell St, 6th St/Hewitt Ave, and Burwell St/Washington Ave Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $2,900,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Adaptive signal timing provides flexibility for improved traffic operations and optimizing efficiency of existing roadway capacity. Adaptive signals change without human interaction and automatically adjust the length of green time given to each movement at an intersection based on what the traffic conditions need. This enables the traffic signals to better serve all people (vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists) moving through the intersection or along a roadway. This increases capacity of the intersection without changing the channelization and improves average performance metrics (travel time, control delay, emissions, and fuel consumption) by 10 percent or more.  Pedestrian crossing treatments provide safer facilities for pedestrians by providing visibility Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes  City Safety Improvements in 6 year TIP Page 8 Phase CC-7 Project Description Add bike facilities on Shorewood Dr to connect to Kitsap Way to downtown Bremerton. Navy should consider improving path from Grays Harbor Court to Shorewood Dr to provide connection for Jackson Park to city facilities. Project Code AT48 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies NBK-BR Relationship to Other Projects - Location Shorewood Dr north of Kitsap Way Project Length 1 mile Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $4,900,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards  Navy would maintain all property rights to paths within Jackson Park, could restrict access as needed and would not be considered part of an official bike route Project Benefits  Consistent with City plans  Protected bike lanes provide a safer biking environment  Protected bike lanes along Shorewood Dr would provide an easier and safer route for bicyclists travelling to and from NBK-BR and would encourage mode shift to biking Project Issues and Risks  Additional outreach, design, and estimating are required for the final configuration for bicycle facilities Notes  Identified in City of Bremerton 6-year TIP (2023 to 2028) Page 9 Phase CC-8 Project Description Pedestrian/bike improvements within 5 minute walkshed of Wheaton Way Transit Center and United Methodist Church P&R Project Code C31 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies Kitsap Transit Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $6,600,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Cost estimate assume sidewalk upgrades (bringing sidewalks up to standards, adding ADA ramps, and building sidewalks where they are missing) within a 5-minute walkshed of each P&R.  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards Project Benefits  Pedestrian and bike improvements in the vicinity of existing park and rides provide an easier and safer route for pedestrians and bicyclists using transit to travel to and from NBK-BR and would encourage mode shift to transit Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes Page 10 Phase CC-9 Project Description Improve the sidewalk conditions in the neighborhood west of Charleston Blvd Project Code AT27 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton, Kitsap County Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $8,000,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Total cost for improving 16,800 linear feet of sidewalks that are in fair/marginal or poor/very poor conditions  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards Project Benefits  Improved sidewalk conditions and connectivity provide a safer walking environment and encourage mode shift to walking Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes  Sidewalk Program already identified in City of Bremerton 6-year TIP (2023 to 2028) Page 11 Phase CC-10 Project Description Construct a mobility hub at the southwest corner of Park Ave and 4th St for first/last mile connections Project Code AT2 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies Kitsap Transit Relationship to Other Projects With bike lanes on Park Ave as part of project AT55 Location Park Ave/4th St Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $1,500,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Includes drive aisle and parking areas, sidewalks, ornamental open planting  Assumes no impacts to right-of-way  Project location is the City-owned parking lot at the southwest corner of 4th St and Park Ave  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards Project Benefits  Improved connectivity encourages mode shift to walking, biking, and transit Project Issues and Risks  Project would result in loss of parking revenue from exisitng surface lot. Notes Page 12 Phase CC-10 Project Description Construct bike lanes on Park Ave from 4th St to 6th St Project Code AT55 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects With mobility hub at Park Ave/4th St as part of AT2 Location Park Ave between 4th St and 6th St Project Length 570 feet Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $125,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Would be constructed in conjuction with proposed mobility hub  Lighting upgrades should be evaluated in accordance with the City's engineering design and construction standards Project Benefits  Protected bike lanes provide a safer biking environment  Protected bike lanes along Park Ave would provide an easier and safer route for bicyclists travelling to and from NBK-BR and would encourage mode shift to biking  Provides a connection between the proposed 6th St bike lanes (C24/AT53) and proposed mobility hub (AT2) Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes Page 13 Phase CC-11 Project Description Traffic Management Center that includes IT infrastructure to support adaptive signals (e.g. Cloud based technology) Project Code C26 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects In coordination with adaptive signal timing as part of C35 and C38 Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $2,300,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Cost estimate assumes retrofit of existing building in Bremerton, ITS services, servers, and ATS systems. Project Benefits  This concept provides the city with additional flexibility in operating an adaptive signal system by observing system-wide operations in real-time, making changes to traffic signals to help reduce congestion and reducing delays caused by incidents or crashes by dispatching tow-trucks. . Project Issues and Risks  Requires off-site control area with dedicated computer system and operator  Cost for operations and maintenance  Active traffic management on state highways may require a systems engineering process as defined in the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines Manual Notes Page 14 Phase CC-12 Project Description Convert signal at Naval Ave/6th St to a roundabout Project Code C41 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects Follows road diet on 6th St as part of project C24 and road diet on Naval Ave as part of project C40 Location Naval Ave/6th St Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $7,500,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Not needed until level of service falls below standards  Compact roundabout  Additional intersection analysis will be required during design to determine a layout for the roundabout that addresses AM peak hour congestion Project Benefits  Roundabouts reduce crash severity, improve pedestrian safety, and provide a sustainable solution for traffic control  Project improves travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for vehicles and transit Project Issues and Risks  Impacts to right-of-way  Public education required  Cost  Moderate traffic interruption during construction  Additional mitigation may be required to address environmental impacts not evaluated in this study Notes Page 15 Phase CC-13 Project Description Build projects proposed in SR 303 Corridor Study - prioritize capacity projects including RABs and BAT lane Project Code C29 Project Type City Capital Projects (CC) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies Kitsap County, Kitsap Transit Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length 3.9 miles Recommended Implementation Time Frame > 20 years Cost Estimate* $120,000,000 *Source: SR 303 Corridor Study Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Project costs are in 2020 dollars  Implementation of projects is consistent with the SR 303 Corridor Study phasing recommendations, with full build out in the 20-year timeframe Project Benefits  Most of the proposed projects from the SR 303 Corridor Study would improve travel time, travel time reliability, mobility, safety, and access to transit to commuters of all modes along SR 303/Warren Ave  Consistent with Kitsap Transit long-range planning efforts Project Issues and Risks  Impacts to right-of-way  Cost  Northbound BAT lane along SR 303 has potential to reduce travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for general purpose vehicles by reducing the amount of green time available to general purpose vehiclesa  Replacing the TWLTL along SR 303 with a median has potential to reduce travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for general purpose vehicles by requiring vehicles to take u-turns at intersections to access businesses Notes  Priority projects include safety measures along SR 303 between Burwell St and 6th St (Phase 4A), roundabout at SR 303/11th St (Phase 4B), sidewalk improvements along SR 303 (Phase 8A), and a northbound BAT lane along SR 303 (Phase 8B) Page 16 Phase CP-1 Project Description Support Kitsap Transit's redevelopment of the Gateway Park and Ride property located at 6th St and Montgomery Ave in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Charleston Area-wide Planning Study Project Code AT1 Project Type City Policy Projects (CP) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies Kitsap Transit Relationship to Other Projects - Location 6th St/Montgomery Ave Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $1,500,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Proposed mobility hub at existing Gateway Park and Ride Project Benefits  Consistent with Kitsap Transit long-range planning efforts  This Kitsap Transit property was identified by the JCTP as having valuable potential for transit oriented development. Projects that support transit, active transportation, and affordable housing have a positive benefit to the goals outlined in the JCTP Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes  City can provided supportive language for future grant applications Page 17 Phase CP-2 Project Description Implement paid on-street parking in the downtown subarea Project Code PM15 Project Type City Policy Projects (CP) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects Should follow projects that increase access to transit and other modes such as PC3, PC4 and PC6, the CTR projects, and the AT projects. Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $50,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Paid parking in downtown may be implemented through mobile payment with the primary cost to the City being to install the signage. Revenue has the potential to exceed management costs and could be used for improvements to downtown. Project Benefits  Paid parking will increase access to downtown for customers and visitors in support of local businesses Project Issues and Risks  Requires communication and outreach to residents, NBK-BR, and the business community Notes  Recommend following these implementation steps: o Update the Rates and Fees per Bremerton Municipal Code 3.01 to authorize rates for paid parking in the downtown subarea and provide a framework for pricing o Develop a demand-based pricing program o Create a revenue model to test different pricing strategies and develop estimates o Establish an initial regulatory framework for time limits and pricing that varies by season, day, and/or hourly o Conduct outreach to downtown businesses, property owners, and residents about implementing paid parking downtown o Develop and issue an RFP for mobile parking payment to implement paid on-street parking in downtown or expand current agreement with PaybyPhone o Establish an on-street validation program or price reductions at local businesses in partnership with downtown businesses. Would need to issue an RFP for software agreements ie. Flagstaff, AZ has a “parking angels” program where businesses discount purchases by $1 to pay for parking. o Develop a communications and marketing plan for implementing paid parking in downtown that will precede the launch of the program. See programs such as the City of Bellingham and the Ctiy of Seattle. Page 18 Phase CP-3 Project Description Implement permit only parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to and surrounding NBK-BR Project Code PM2 Project Type City Policy Projects (CP) Owner Agency City of Bremerton Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects Should follow projects that increase access to transit and other modes such as PC3, PC4 and PC6, the CTR projects, and the AT projects. Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $50,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  The implementation of expanded on-street parking permit programs will be actively managed to achieve project benefits Project Benefits  Manage commuter parking conflicts in residential areas.  Improve livability in residential areas Project Issues and Risks  Requires communication and outreach to residents and NBK-BR Notes  Recommend following these implementation steps: o Update the Bremerton Municipal Code o Authorize permit-only zones by petition o Address guest pass eligibility o Include a framework for permit pricing o Add a prohibition on permit zones in the downtown subarea where customer and visitor access should be prioritized. o Conduct public engagement to residents in existing permit zones regarding the desirability of converting to permit-only parking. o Implement pricing to sustain management of the program. Page 19 Phase BC-1 Project Description Install secure covered bike parking inside NBK-BR, PSNS, and outside gates Project Code AT19 Project Type Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Capital Projects (BC) Owner Agency NBK-BR Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $200,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Cost estimate assumes 9 bike lockers that hold 2 bikes each at a cost of $3,700 each plus concrete slabs and luminaires. Project Benefits  Provides more transportation options for NBK-BR commuters  Installation can provide added security for bikes which will encourage bike commuting, especially as electric bikes are an investment for workforce and attractive for theft Project Issues and Risks  Coordinate project with NBK-BR security staff to ensure placement and type of bike lockers is consistent with installation security needs Notes  Could include the conversion of vehicle parking spaces Page 20 Phase BC-2 Project Description Improve or manage vehicle input at NBK-BR gates in the AM peak to decrease queuing on City streets Project Code B3 Project Type Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Capital Projects (BC) Owner Agency NBK-BR Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $600,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Cost estimate assumes new fencing, additional lanes, utility relocation, and new guardhouses at Naval and Montgomery gates. Does not include operating costs like additional staff. Project Benefits  Decreases queueing and improves traffic operations for adjacent roadways.  NBK-BR can actively manage gate progression through process changes, additional staff, or gate improvements Project Issues and Risks  Gate security needs may change/fluctuate during times of heightened national security  Additional staff support may be required to maintain appropriate gate progression Notes  NBK-BR and Bremerton would benefit from coordination of gate progression. This would allow for Bremerton employ traffic management through the proposed adaptive signal timing system to mitigate issues at times when NBK-BR cannot meet gate progression goals Page 21 Phase BC-3 Project Description Allow outpt at Montgomery gate during AM peak hours and allow input during PM peak hours Project Code B18 Project Type Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Capital Projects (BC) Owner Agency NBK-BR Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  May require NBK-BR staffing increases to maintain gate when fleet is deployed  Montgomery Gate currently opens when multiple Carriers are in port and when staffing allows Project Benefits  Decreases queueing and improves traffic operations for adjacent roadways by dispering incoming and outgoing traffic through multiple gate locations. Project Issues and Risks  Gate security needs may change/fluctuate during times of heightened national security Notes  NBK-BR and Bremerton would benefit from coordination regarding gate operations. This would allow for Bremerton to employ traffic management through the proposed adaptive signal timing system to mitigate issues at times when NBK-BR cannot meet gate progression goals. Page 22 Phase BC-4 Project Description Study the need for a new off-ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 as part of the Navy’s planning for any future Base modifications that triggers this project Project Code C14 Project Type Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Capital Projects (BC) Owner Agency NBK-BR Partner Agencies WSDOT, City of Bremerton Relationship to Other Projects - Location SR 3/SR 304 interchange Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate* $1,000,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Cost estimate is for cost of planning study, not the actual cost of the new off-ramp. Project Benefits  A new off-ramp from southbound SR 3 to eastbound SR 304 would provide more direct access for people travelling from southbound SR 3 to NBK-BR Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes  WSDOT has conducted several studies of the SR 3/SR 304 interchange in the last ten years. Findings did not indicate a need for a southbound ramp from SR 3 to SR 304.  WSDOT policy requires the formal submission of a request to either add, revise, or abandon access to freeways. Page 23 Phase BC-5 Project Description Maximize the efficient use of parking stalls on NBK-BR installation and construct additional parking Project Code B7 Project Type Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Capital Projects (BC) Owner Agency NBK-BR Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame > 20 years Cost Estimate* $25,200,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Efficiencies to existing parking can be achieved through a variety of measures including: restriping lots to fit more vehicles, revising permit programs to add more car pool and van pool, prioritize new permits for car pools or van pools, stall sharing for teleworkers  Additional parking can be constructed vertically to existing surface lots. Cost estimate assumes one parking garge with 4 stories on an existing surface lot. Project Benefits  Additional parking on the west side of the installation near the Farragut Gate would complement the SB SR 3 off-ramp to Charelston Beach Blvd (Project C14)  Recommended due to high demand for parking traffic originating from the south. Also available space at the base entrance with ease of access to base bus service.  Additonal people served by stalls on base reduces the amount of parking off-installation which improves livability for Bremerton residents  On-Installation parking provides safe reliable and free parking for workforce. Technology and telework provide opportunity to maximize use of parking stalls on installation Project Issues and Risks  Funding for additional parking on Base is not supported by the DOD Notes  Parking efficiencies achievable through lower cost measures such as permit program changes, restriping lots, and stall sharing should be pursued as a near-term project. Page 24 Phase BP-1 Project Description Maintain telework options currently available to DOD employees Project Code CTR1 Project Type Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Policy Projects (BP) Owner Agency NBK-BR Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Telework allows people to work from home and use internet or phone for their meetings.  During the COVID-19 Pandemic NBK-BR expanded its telework options and telework has continued for some positions, as appropriate for the work demands Project Benefits  Fewer commuters travelling to NBK-BR would improve travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for vehicles and transit in downtown Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes  Telework is not feasible for a majority of positions at NBK-BR due to the nature of the work, however some office-based jobs may be a good fit for telework Page 25 Phase BP-2 Project Description Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker Driver Bus program by making changes to reimbursement process and easing use requirements Project Code CTR3 Project Type Naval Base Kitsap - Bremerton Policy Projects (BP) Owner Agency NBK-BR Partner Agencies City of Bremerton, Kitsap Transit Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Reimbursement program is the Federal Incentive Program (TIP) and changes would need to negotiated at the Federal level  D.C. area program would be model - workers get a monthly pass rather than the reimbursement model currently in use at NBK-BR Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit  Allows flexibility for individual workers to optimize their commutes Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes Page 26 Phase KC-1 Project Description Build the park and rides outlined in the Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan, including the Silverdale Park and Ride north of Bremerton and the West Bremerton Transit Center/Park and Ride at Auto Center Way Project Code PC6 Project Type Kitsap Transit Capital Projects (KC) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $53,200,000 *Source: Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Kitsap Transit LRP assumes 270 parking stalls at the proposed Silverdale Park and Ride and does not specify the number of parking stalls at the proposed West Bremerton Transit Center/Park and Ride. JCTP study suggests a demand for 225 parking stalls north of Bremerton and 700 parking stalls near the SR 3/West Kitsap Way interchange. Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit  Captures portion of vehicles travelling into downtown, reducing travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for vehicles and transit downtown Project Issues and Risks  Cost  Additional mitigation may be required to address environmental impacts not evaluated in this study Notes  1,570 vehicles (23 percent of total inbound vehicles) are forecasted to travel through the SR 3/West Kitsap Way interchange during the Year 2050 AM peak hour.  1,740 vehicles (25 percent of total inbound vehicles) are forecasted to travel from north of Bremerton along SR 303 during the Year 2050 AM peak hour.  Smaller scale park and rides in mixed use settings may be more cost efficient and provide a safer environment than large scale dedicated park and ride lots Page 27 Phase KC-2 Project Description Build projects in Kitsap Transit’s Long Range Plan that provide a reliable non-auto travel mode, such as new circulator route in Bremerton, new express bus service between Tacoma and Bremerton, high-capacity transit on SR 303, new on-demand ride zones in Bremerton, multimodal hubs, and additional park and ride lots Project Code PC4 Project Type Kitsap Transit Capital Projects (KC) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $48,000,000 *Source: Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit  Captures portion of vehicles travelling into downtown, reducing travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for vehicles and transit downtown Project Issues and Risks  Cost  Additional mitigation may be required to address environmental impacts not evaluated in this study Notes  See Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan for more details on scope of project, cost estimates, and implementation time frames Page 28 Phase KC-3 Project Description Build park and rides in Kitsap Transit's Long Range Plan at the Puget Sound Industrial Center and in South Kitsap; look for opportunities to add parking beyond planned 520 parking stalls Project Code PC3 Project Type Kitsap Transit Capital Projects (KC) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies City of Bremerton Relationship to Other Projects - Location Gorst Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $24,200,000 *Source: Kitsap Transit Long Range Plan Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Located in areas that will reduce traffic volumes through Gorst  Kitsap Transit LRP assumes 270 parking stalls at the proposed Tremont Park and Ride and 250 parking stalls at the proposed Puget Sound Industrial Area Park and Ride. JCTP study suggests a demand for 1,150 parking stalls south of Bremerton. Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit  Captures portion of vehicles travelling into downtown, reducing travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for vehicles and transit downtown Project Issues and Risks  Cost  Additional mitigation may be required to address environmental impacts not evaluated in this study Notes  1,795 vehicles (26 percent of total inbound vehicles) are forecasted to travel from south of Bremerton along Charleston Blvd (SR 304) during the Year 2050 AM peak hour.  Smaller scale park and rides in mixed use settings may be more cost efficient and provide a safer environment than large scale dedicated park and ride lots Page 29 Phase KP-1 Project Description Improve NBK-BR/Kitsap Transit Worker Driver Bus program by using technology and active management to optimize routes and by adding "late" routes and/or alternative shift routes Project Code CTR11 Project Type Kitsap Transit Policy Projects (KP) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies NBR-BR Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Technology could be utilized to optimize routes Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit Project Issues and Risks  Availability of drivers and fleet Notes  Consider adding routes to shorten overall route time. Many survey respondents cited time as a reason why they do not utilize the worker driver bus program. Consider capping route length/time to 30-45 minutes Page 30 Phase KP-2 Project Description Study increased foot-ferry capacity between Bremerton and Port Orchard to align with Kitsap Transit's Long Range Transit Plan Project Code CTR12 Project Type Kitsap Transit Policy Projects (KP) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies City of Bremerton, City of Port Orchard Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit  JCTP identified foot-ferry from Port Orchard as an efficient commute option that could reduce commute times by avoiding Gorst congestion  Provides resilient connection between North and South Kitsap Project Issues and Risks  Need to consider changes to Kitsap foot ferry frequency to accommodate higher demand.  Need to consider transit frequency, transit routes, and park and rides to support foot ferry Notes Page 31 Phase KP-3 Project Description Reduced fare and regular bus passes. Reduced fare based on income Project Code CTR4 Project Type Kitsap Transit Policy Projects (KP) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies - Relationship to Other Projects With incentives to ride transit as part of project CTR3 Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit Project Issues and Risks  Kitsap Transit operations are funded by fares Notes Page 32 Phase KP-4 Project Description Shuttle service between park and rides and downtown Bremerton (regular bus route with high frequency) Project Code T8 Project Type Kitsap Transit Policy Projects (KP) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies NBK-BR Relationship to Other Projects With new park and rides (PC6, PC4, PC3) Location Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit  Consistent with Kitsap Transit long-range planning efforts  Project would likely improve travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for transit Project Issues and Risks  Availability of drivers and fleet Notes  Many survey respondents cited difficulty accessing vehicle in case of emergency (such as a child that needs to be picked up from school) as a reason why they do not utilize park and rides Page 33 Phase KP-5 Project Description More bus routes and greater frequency (10-15 minute headways) to NBK-BR, including early moring and late evening routes Project Code T6 Project Type Kitsap Transit Policy Projects (KP) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies NBK-BR Relationship to Other Projects - Location Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to transit  Project would likely improve travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility for transit Project Issues and Risks  Availability of drivers and fleet Notes Page 34 Phase KP-6 Project Description Establish a transportation management association. This is typically a non-profit established as a public/private partnership with funding primarily from major employers. Funding is used to support expansion of commuter transportation options Project Code PM3 Project Type Kitsap Transit Policy Projects (KP) Owner Agency Kitsap Transit Partner Agencies City of Bremerton, NBK-BR, Port of Bremerton, WSDOT Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $500,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Cost estimate includes startup costs and operations for at least a year, including two staff members, and office space. As a member of the TMA, the City could contribute ongoing funding (perhaps using parking revenue), but the TMA should be self-funding through its multiple partnerships and serve as a standalone organization. Major employers could also provide seed funding.  Requires convening potential partners to discuss interest, coordination, and funding potential. The TMA will require involvement from NBK-Bremerton, transit agencies, and major institutions and employers to be successful Project Benefits  Coordination between public and private entities that have significant transportation demand. The TMA would provide incentives for expanding transportation options that reduce impacts on the system and on neighborhoods in Bremerton.  Coordination with NBK-BR to promote transportation options and inform workforce of available benefits like the guaranteed ride home Project Issues and Risks  Requires coordination and agreement among several entities with significant seed money to startup costs and initial programs Notes  Recommend following these implementation steps: o Convene a workgroup of potential TMA partners including the city, major employers and institutions, the chamber of commerce, transit agencies, and community organizations to develop a framework for implementation Page 35 Phase WC-1 Project Description Build intersection improvements at SR 3/Kitsap Way as recommended by the West Kitsap Way study Project Code C1 Project Type Washington State Capital Projects (WC) Owner Agency WSDOT Partner Agencies City of Bremerton Relationship to Other Projects - Location Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate Refer to West Kitsap Way Planning Study Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Intersection improvements would likely improve travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility by reducing intersection delay for vehicles and transit Project Issues and Risks  No major issues or risks identified at this time Notes  Project will be documented in West Kitsap Way Planning Study (City of Bremerton) Page 36 Phase WC-2 Project Description Convert stop sign and signals at SR 3/W Loxie Eagans Blvd interchange to roundabouts Project Code C2 Project Type Washington State Capital Projects (WC) Owner Agency WSDOT Partner Agencies City of Bremerton Relationship to Other Projects - Location Bremerton Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame 6-20 years Cost Estimate* $13,700,000 *Cost in 2022 dollars and includes 50% contingency, 30% PE, and 30% CM Project Attributes Project Assumptions  No project assumptions identified at this time Project Benefits  Roundabouts reduce crash severity, improve pedestrian safety, and provide a sustainable solution for traffic control  Project would likely improve travel time, travel time reliability, and mobility by reducing intersection delay for vehicles and transit Project Issues and Risks  Impacts to right-of-way  Public education required  Cost  Moderate traffic interruption during construction  Additional mitigation may be required to address environmental impacts not evaluated in this study Notes  Design should support and include all City of Bremerton active transportation planning improvements Page 37 Phase WP-1 Project Description Better enforcement of HOV lanes Project Code O6 Project Type Washington State Policy Projects (WP) Owner Agency Washington State Patrol Partner Agencies City of Bremerton Relationship to Other Projects - Location - Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  HOV lane on SR 304 west bound Project Benefits  Encourages mode shift to HOV by providing clearer benefit for vehicles in HOV lane compared to SOV lanes Project Issues and Risks  Requires ongoing enforcement Notes  If additional HOV lanes are considered with the Gorst project, enforcement needs should be considered with design of the lanes (i.e. a place for Traffic Enforcement Officers to stage) Page 38 Phase WP-2 Project Description Support planning efforts for SR 3 in Gorst Project Code AT14 Project Type Washington State Policy Projects (WP) Owner Agency WSDOT Partner Agencies City of Bremerton, NBK-BR, Kitsap County, Port of Bremerton, Port Orchard Relationship to Other Projects - Location Gorst Project Length - Recommended Implementation Time Frame < 6 years Cost Estimate TBD Project Attributes Project Assumptions  Gorst plan should incorporate a bicycle and pedestrian trail that would be 12 feet wide and not coincide with the roadway. Some level of buffer between the road edge and trail would be necessary. Project Benefits  SR 3 is critical to transportation in Kitsap County and is a nationally important frieght corridor. It's function is of critical importance to the mission of NBK-BR  Currently SR 3 is a barrier for active transportation between Bremerton (and points north) and South Kitsap. Project Issues and Risks  Cost Notes  City can provided supportive language for future grant applications Published for December 13 Study Session ITEM A7 – Public Comments From: Nicholas Whelan <linkskywalker14@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:26 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Joint Compatibility Transportation Plan Pedestrian Concern As part of any improvements made to Wheaton Way/SR303, I hope the pedestrian infrastructure between Sheridan Rd and the Warren Avenue Bridge can be addressed. This small stretch of road is dangerously hostile to pedestrians. Yet it has significant pedestrian infrastructure on either side of it. A relatively small investment of resources could have an outsized impact on making Bremerton a safer place to walk, which would help reduce car traffic between Easter Bremerton and the navy yard. Regards, Nicholas Whelan AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Resolution to confirm the Administration’s Recommendation to Develop a Low-Barrier Walk-up Congregate Homeless Shelter at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue North COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: PW&U Presenter: K. Ketterer Phone: (360) 473-5334 SUMMARY: Over the past few years, there has been a noted rise in homelessness, both in our city and across the nation. This issue has tested the limits of the City’s resources and our commitment to ensuring that every member of our community has access to safe, dig nified, and stable housing. In coordination with the newly adopted unauthorized camping ordinance, the City must establish an emergency shelter, with the goal to address the immediate needs of the homeless while ensuring our Parks, neighborhoods, and other public spaces are protected from unregulated camping. The Administration has evaluated several shelter types for development at the City owned property adjacent to the Public Works Facility at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue North and has recommended a congregate style shelter for further development and design. The Resolution confirms the approach to begin development and design of the congregate style shelter. Future presentations, contracts, and budget adjustments will come to City Council, as required, as the project proceeds. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution; 2) Shelter Type Recommendation Memo FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): TBD STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☐ Limited Presentation ☒ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. to confirm the administration’s recommendation to develop a low- barrier walk-up congregate homeless shelter at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue North. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 11/09/2021 A8 Page 1 of 2 Resolution Document Reference Rev. 01/2023 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, confirming the administration’s recommendation to develop a low-barrier walk-up congregate homeless shelter at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue North. WHEREAS, the City is facing a rise in homelessness; and WHEREAS, chapter 9.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code titled “Unauthorized Camping” makes it unlawful for people to camp in any park or other public place; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in Martin v. Boise prohibits cities from enforcing ordinances that criminalize camping on all public property when there is no available shelter; and WHEREAS, chapter 9.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code titled “Unauthorized Camping” includes language that suspends enforcement of unauthorized camping in public places when there is no overnight shelter available; and WHEREAS, currently the only available low barrier walk-up shelter in the Bremerton City limits is operated by the Salvation Army, and the Salvation Army operates the shelter between November 1st and April 30th; and WHEREAS, immediately upon the Salvation Army closing their emergency cold weather shelter in the spring of 2023, homeless encampments began being established in residential and commercial areas in downtown Bremerton; and WHEREAS, the homeless encampments resulted in unsanitary and unsafe conditions both for the encampment residents and the surrounding community; and WHEREAS, to enforce the ordinance banning unauthorized camping in public places, overnight shelter must be available; and WHEREAS, the administration has undergone an evaluation of shelter alternatives and determined that a low-barrier walk-up congregate shelter is currently missing in the continuum of care for homeless individuals within the Bremerton City limits; and WHEREAS, the administration recommends that a low-barrier walk-up congregate shelter be constructed to provide a warm and safe location for those persons who chose shelter; and WHEREAS, the administration evaluated city-owned property against criteria that included zoning, size, site access and readiness, transit access, access to other services, existing use, and critical area and determined that property adjacent to the Public Works Complex at 100 Oyster Bay Avenue North is suitable for a homeless shelter; and Page 2 of 2 Resolution Document Reference Rev. 01/2023 WHEREAS, construction of a low-barrier walk-up congregate shelter will allow the City to enforce its codes and ordinances and thereby protect its citizens and businesses; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Bremerton does hereby confirm the recommendation by the Mayor to pursue development of a low-barrier walk-up congregate shelter in accordance with all existing budget, procurement, development, and zoning regulations including SEPA and any other required environmental permitting. SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _____ day of __________________, 20____. JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: KYLIE J. FINNELL, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk R:\Legal\Legal\Forms\FORMS ON COBWEB\Resolution Rev. 01 2023.doc APPROVE HOMELESS SHELTER DEVELOPMENTCity Council Study Session12/13/2023 Agenda• Project Status• Site Evaluation and Selection • Review Timeline and Critical Dates• RPM Shelter Analysis• Neighborhood Objections • Cost Estimates• Alternative Summary Project Status• City reviewed potential sites and selected the Oyster Bay Property• The City currently has two contracts for this project• Parametrix Contract for 30% design of site development • Includes conceptual layout for a site that could be used for any of the three shelter types• Includes understanding scope of site grading, cost of grading, stormwater needs, access to site, and draft site development permitting documents• Staff is currently working with PMX to finalize a layout concept for further development • RPM Contract for Shelter Type Analysis• SEPA and other permitting will begin once a shelter type has been selected• Existing reports and investigations are being used to inform feasibility and cost of the 30% design, but more detailed reports will be required for permitting Site Evaluation CriteriaCriteria used to evaluate site feasibility:• Ownership - owned by City• Size - Useable area of 1 acre, minimum• Existing use• Zoning – must allow construction of a hotel• Critical Area Review • Readiness - What improvements are needed to prep the site?• Access - Is the site accessible from an existing right of way? • Transit/Transportation and Resource Accessibility• Timing - How quickly can the site be ready?One site met this criteria Sites EvaluatedCity staff reviewed the comprehensive property list prepared by the City Auditor and eliminated properties that did not meet the most basic criteria.• Size – under 1 acre• Existing use – parks, wells, pump stations• Zoning – utility land, etc.4 properties were identified for further evaluation (summaries of evaluations shown here) Site Selected – Property north of PW&U Facility• Large enough (at least 1 acre)• Appropriate zoning (General Commercial)• Adjacent to KT route and within walking distance of several routes on Kitsap Way• Near other resources such as health care and food• Grading and site preparation needed for shelter development and access• Grading is forward compatible with future use of site by Public Works & Utilities• Full site not needed for PW&U expansion in the immediate future Timeline ResponseConcernAll sites have surrounding neighborhoods Site selection process done without regard to neighborhoodRPM has included response, shelter design will include safety featuresCrime will increase A public outreach plan will be included with consultant contracts for shelter/site designLack of public outreachSEPA and permitting will be completed; design will address aesthetics and other City zoning design requirements City bypassing SEPA and permittingConstruction not planned until late summer Construction during rainy season City will address neighborhood impacts through the design of the shelter and with operations planning – Council will provide oversight as milestones such as contracts, grants, and budget adjustments come forward for approvalLack of plan to mitigate neighborhood impactsThe City has taken full advantage of Kitsap County’s plans to expedite the project, however, the shelter will be sized and designed for Bremerton’s useTaking on Kitsap County’s planCity brought project to public’s attention at earliest stage of development with full transparency and will continue to do so Lack of transparency The site at the Wastewater Treatment Plant was eliminated due to several issues – the cost and timeline for street improvements to provide access is prohibitive. Would include the purchase of a propertyAnother site was preferred by consultantThe recommended shelter is a self-contained campus, it would have an internal waiting room, a secure exterior courtyard, and would provide services to clients onlyCurrent conditions at Salvation Army would come to neighborhood (milling, personal items, trash) RPM Presentation The RPM Team is a consultant for homelessness programs and a design firm involved in developing and constructing Navigation Shelters.RPM has reviewed the scope of the homelessness issue in Bremerton and has evaluated 3 shelter types that could be implemented at the Oyster Bay site. They will now present their findings and recommendation.RPM Team IntroductionsDavid Renard, PresidentCruz Avila, Homeless Operations and Programs Principal Potential CostsOrder of magnitude costs, not budgetaryBased on 100 bedsTent EncampmentSprung ShelterPallet Community$2,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000Site Grading Design & Construction$1,150,000$3,400,000$3,600,000Shelter Capital Costs$3,150,000$5,400,000$6,600,000TotalOperations and maintenance costs for each shelter type not fully understood, however some considerations include:• Sprung shelter likely has the lowest operations costs due to the efficiency of the space for both staffing and energy costs• Pallet will have a higher maintenance cost due to construction from less durable materials, and the number of individual units that must be maintained (heat/ac, locks, windows, doors etc.) Alternative Summary Questions? navigating a better future rpm-team.com 2023 City of Bremerton Shelter Analysis Submitted by: RPM Team LLC 295 Main St, Ste 210 Salinas, CA 93901 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Scope Summary The City has conducted a thorough review of available land and is looking for a comparison and recommendation between three different approaches to a shelter site: a sanctioned tent encampment, a Pallet community, and a Sprung Shelter. RPM’s current scope is to provide a recommendation for a type of shelter and an overview of how different shelter types impact neighborhoods. To determine the most appropriate shelter type, RPM Team has prioritized understanding community feedback, engaging with local service providers, and assessing the scope of the issue and available resources. 2 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Increasing Numbers of Unsheltered Individuals The 2023 count of 245 unsheltered individuals indicates a 34% increase from 2022 and a 23% increase from the prior highest count of 199 in the year 2020. Note that additional shelter beds were in operation from 2021- 2023. The unsheltered count was not performed in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic*. 58% of the 245 unhoused are in Bremerton. Current shelter waitlist is 100-175 people. 3 navigating a better future rpm-team.com RPM Introduction RPM Team operates as both a consultant for homelessness programs and a turnkey design firm involved in developing and constructing Navigation Shelters. Specializing in pre-engineered and prefabricated structures, we deploy teams faster than traditional EPC firms while remaining an economical option for planning, designing, and constructing housing projects. Community Faith Meeting, California 4 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Introducing Shelter Options With the consideration of the local community, Bremerton’s public policies, local service providers and assessing the scope of the issue and available resources, RPM Team has prepared an overview of how three different shelter types impact neighborhoods. •Regulated Tent Encampments •Pallet Communities •Sprung Shelter 5 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Regulated Tent Encampment A regulated tent encampment is a designated area where individuals or groups can set up temporary shelters, typically in the form of tents, in a controlled and regulated manner. Regulated Tent Encampment, California 6 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Pallet Community A pallet community typically refers to a housing arrangement where individuals or families reside in small structures or tiny homes made by Pallet Shelters. Pallet Community, Oregon 7 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Sprung Shelter Sprung Shelters are used as a solution for providing temporary congregate housing quickly and efficiently for emergency response or initiatives addressing homelessness. Sprung Shelter, Washington 8 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Option 1: Regulated Tent Encampment A safe camp facility may become an effective short-term alternative to living in an encampment, however it is critical for decision makers to understand and acknowledge that even a very clean, safe and well-run encampment with tents is technically speaking, not sheltering any of its residents. Definition of an unsheltered homeless person: A person that lives in a place not meant for human habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings, or on the street. A sanctioned encampment does not align with the City’s initiatives, and Mayor’s core values. Tent Encampment, Colorado 9 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Health implications of regulated tent encampments Tent encampment sites are a growing concern in cities across the United States. These makeshift shelters, often located on cold, hard ground, rarely offer any insulation or protection from the elements. With limited heating options and inadequate sanitation facilities, they pose a significant risk to the public health of both residents and the surrounding community. Tent encampments are not comparable to Pallet communities and Sprung shelter sites for the following reasons: they don’t provide shelter, they don’t fall in line with national definitions of shelters, they are unhealthy, unsafe, and they become a city sponsored public health situation further perpetuating the stigma of homelessness.Tent Encampment, California 10 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Option 2: Pallet Communities Boasting nearly 2,700 units across 13 states, Pallet Shelters offer the quickest solution for quick-build emergency shelters. Their success stems from a unique combination of minimal site development which allows for rapid construction, and a commitment to employing recently unhoused individuals. General maintenance can also be more difficult due to the large number of individual units which require inspections of mechanical units, smoke detectors, and electrical circuit overloading with multiple appliances. Smoke detectors and fire extinguishers are easily disabled and vandalized by residents. Individual mechanical units are typically low efficiency and require regular filter changes and frequent maintenance due to damage and over-use. The interior of the Pallet shelter is also unrefined. The structures have not been adequately tested for fire resistance, and several sites have caught fire due to the Pallet materials’ propensity to ignite when a flame is nearby. Pallet Community, Oregon 11 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Modular sleeping units do not contain individual bathrooms or showers and shared facilities must be accessed by walking outdoors. This is a security problem, particularly during nighttime hours for women, seniors and people with disabilities. Exterior-only access to shared bathroom and shower facilities is also problematic for mixed populations such as trauma and abuse victims, transgender and mentally ill clients. Aside from the safety concern of using restrooms at night, there is the health concern of traveling outside in freezing temperatures from a shower to your unit, which has been known to cause negative health effects due to the exposure to cold in a damp environment, per NILH standards referenced in the report. Staff could have difficulty in making sure that clients are protected from outside elements, such as weather, crime, and health due to the lack of visibility that comes with individual private spaces. Pallet Community, California 12 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Pallet Shelters contain an effective footprint of approximately 64-80 square feet per dwelling unit but an ineffective maximum of 30-40 units per acre. Costly additional grading would be needed at the site chosen at the city due to the size restrictions individual sleeping cabins present. Pallet shelters screws pierce the structural envelope, creating many leak points over time. As a result, occupants have voiced extra measures needed to mitigate leaks. Unfortunately, Pallet Shelters have a negative track record and propensity for fires. Fires have been reported at Pallet sites in Oakland, Los Angeles, and Banning. Pallet Community Fire Oakland, California 13 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Option 3: Sprung Structures Shelters exist to provide residents with safety and protection from exposure to the weather while simultaneously reducing the environmental impact on the community, providing respite and services to the residents, and a hygienic bathroom and shower area. Homeless shelters with services are best executed with a Sprung Structure, an energy efficient clear span tension membrane structure. The shape of the Sprung Structure with the tall interior ceilings enable a more dense floor plan without feeling claustrophobic, fitting more residents relative to other construction types like modular trailers. With the tall ceilings also comes natural light which offers a bright voluminous living space, becoming a more dignified and humanistic facility. The Sprung Shelter option offers a regulated open space, where climate controls and thus disease prevention is managed at a staff level, versus an individual (resident) level, adding to the positive health impacts of the facility. Sprung Shelter, Oregon 14 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Congregate dormitories are highly staff-efficient because staff and clients are regularly interacting. This results in increased safety for staff and clients by reducing the response time for emergency situations through visual monitoring and a limited number of building entry points. Shelters with dormitory buildings also provide more convenient and safe access to restrooms and showers during day and nighttime hours without ever having to leave the facility, meaning there is not outdoor exposure to use a restroom in a Sprung Shelter. Direct access to staff and security offices is also easily accommodated in a shared shelter building. Centralizing operations under one roof makes day to day operations more streamlined and efficiency is improved resulting in better outcomes and less stress. The intake process occurs indoors with easy access to restrooms, lounges and most importantly, respite from the outside elements. Also improving neighborhood optics. Sprung Shelter, California 15 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Congregate dormitory buildings are the most efficient way to maximize the number of dwelling units/beds on a given site. A typical site with dormitory only sleeping provides approximately 400 beds per acre and a 100- bed dormitory can be placed on a site that is less than half an acre. The column free design means that the interior build out and environments can change over time, to evolve with the demographic of the population, or to change its use completely to transition into a community center or public works facility. When designed properly, a shared, congregate living facility can help create a sense of shared purpose & belonging and in general, larger buildings feel more traditional than individual sleeping units. Sprung Shelters are flexible in design to allow traditional architectural components to be integrated like glass entry doors, storefront glazing, and fun curves, alcoves, and entry ways. Sprung Shelter, Washington 16 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Stigma Around Crime Relevant research: https://sf.curbed.com/2019/11/21/20976211/navigation-centers-san-francisco-crime-rates-sf -According to city data obtained by Kron 4, crime around most of SF’s Nav Ctr’s has dropped based on evidence of crime reports requested of a quarter mile radius https://dignitymoves.org/dispelling-the-myth-home-less-shelters-and-crime-rates/ https://www.kqed.org/news/11942734/emergency-calls-complaints-are-down-near-san-joses-temporary-housing- sites-so-why-are-they-still-so-politically-risky\ -Studies show the opening of homeless shelters does not result in an increase of crime rates, and crime rates have decreased after the establishment of homeless shelters. https://thefrisc.com/sfs-specialized-homeless-shelters-do-not-bring-more-crime-no-matter-what-angry-neighbors- say-d7322054a568 -Shows no pattern of rising crime in the months following the opening of a shelter 17 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Stigma Around Crime continued https://www.fremontforeveryone.com/s/Navigation-Center-Neighborhood-Impacts-Final-Report.pdf Navigation Centers Have No Effect on Neighborhood Crime: An analysis of San Francisco Police Department data indicated that navigation centers have no effect on neighborhood crime. -Amount of crime occurring near Navigation Centers was equal to locations without centers -Half of those surveyed believe amount of visible homeless decreased after a center opened in their neighborhood -Neighbors living within one block of the Navigation Centers did not believe that the centers had any effect on the value of their property https://californianewstimes.com/embarcadero-navigation-center-once-the-focus-of-much-rage-from-neighbors- quietly-gets-two-year-extension/647826/ -Neighborhoods that usually oppose shelter, end up supporting them Out of the three, Sprung Shelter best aligns with the intent of the above provided information. It is the only option that truly offers an open, transparent, and controlled setting for the residents ensuring safety to the public of the surrounding neighborhood. 18 navigating a better future rpm-team.com Our Recommendation: Sprung Shelter The Sprung Shelter option is better because it offers shorter stays, climate control, and disease prevention. This is better for the health of the residents and the surrounding community. Sprung shelters are a better alternative to both encampment and pallet options because they align with the 2019 Homeless Crisis and Housing Plan, provide shelter from the elements (weather resistant), and are more transparent. A Sprung shelter fits into the City of Bremerton 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Support efforts to provide for a variety of housing options such as: Emergency group housing, homeless shelters and short-term housing. Sprung shelters are a sustainable option due to their reusability, adaptability, and reduced construction time compared to conventional methods. 19 rpm-team.com navigate a better future 2023 City of Bremerton Shelter Analysis Submitted by: RPM Team LLC 295 Main St, Ste 210 Salinas, CA 93901 1 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Table of Contents Scope Summary.....3 Summary of Local Research Presented.....4 2023 Kitsap County PIT Count.....5 Introduction to RPM Team.....7 Introduction to 3 Shelter Types.....8 Deep Dive Analysis of 3 Shelter Types.....10 Option 1: Regulated Tent Encampment.....10 Comparison: Pallet Communities & Sprung Shelters.....14 Option 2: Pallet Communities.....14 Option 3: Sprung Shelters.....20 Stigma Around Crime.....23 Stigma Around High Cost of Temporary Solutions.....26 Our Recommendation.....27 2 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Scope Summary In recent years, homelessness has witnessed a noticeable increase, impacting not only the City of Bremerton but also our entire nation. This challenge has strained the resources of the Cities and has tested our dedication to guaranteeing that every individual in our community has access to secure, dignified, and stable housing. In alignment with the recently implemented unauthorized camping ordinance, the City of Bremerton, WA is in the process of setting up an emergency shelter to address the pressing needs of the homeless population while simultaneously safeguarding city parks, neighborhoods, and other public spaces from unregulated camping. The City has conducted a thorough review of available land and is looking for a comparison and recommendation between three different approaches to a shelter site: a sanctioned tent encampment, a Pallet community, and a Sprung Shelter. RPM’s current scope is to provide a recommendation for a type of shelter and an overview of how different shelter types impact neighborhoods. Sprung Shelter, Washington Pallet Community, Oregon Tent Encampment, California To determine the most appropriate shelter type, RPM Team has prioritized understanding community feedback, engaging with local service providers, and assessing the scope of the issue and available resources. 3 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Summary of Local Research Presented RPM attended the Kitsap Housing and Homelessness Coalition meeting on November 15th where they received input from Kitsap Community Resources, Kitsap Rescue Mission, Kitsap Mental Health, and other homeless coalition members regarding the scope of the issue including current information on their wait lists along with the Kitsap County Heart meeting. Additionally, RPM has reviewed the Oyster Bay Site. 4 rpm-team.com navigate a better future 2023 Kitsap County Point in Time Count Overview - Preliminary Data The “Point in Time” count is an annual survey that gathers information about people experiencing homelessness during a 24-hour period at the end of January. This survey provides critical information regarding the scope and nature of homelessness in our community and can impact funding for homeless housing and services. Because participating in the survey is voluntary, and relies on volunteers finding people experiencing homelessness, it is considered to be an undercount of the actual number of people experiencing homelessness. Participants are surveyed in a number of locations throughout the county including the Project Connect Resource Fairs[1], food banks/ meal sites, in encampments, and on the streets. Increasing Numbers of Unsheltered Individuals The 2023 count of 245 unsheltered individuals indicates a 34% increase from 2022 and a 23% increase from the prior highest count of 199 in the year 2020. Note that additional shelter beds were in operation from 2021-2023. The unsheltered count was not performed in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic*. Unauthorized Tents, California Current shelter waitlist is 100-175 people. 5 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Defining Sheltered vs. Unsheltered For the purposes of this survey, information is collected on sheltered (in Emergency shelter or transitional housing) vs. unsheltered homelessness. In the 2023 count, 245 people said they were unsheltered. The majority of those who were unsheltered indicated they lived outside in places not meant for human habitation. Last Place of Residence Surveys also collected information about the last city of permanent residence, and 27% of unsheltered households provided this data. 42 (75%) of those households previously had stable housing in Kitsap County. Characteristics When asked about various personal characteristics, 142 unsheltered heads of households (68%) responded. The most common response from survey participants was that they experienced challenges related to mental health, followed by chronic substance use, permanent disability, and chronic health conditions. Causes of Homelessness When asked about the specific cause (or causes) of homelessness, 113 unsheltered households (54%) responded. The most common response was health issues (including mental health), economic issues (loss of a job or unable to work), and housing issues (eviction or loss of housing). [1] In 2023 the Project Connect Community Resource fairs were hosted at the Salvation Army in Bremerton, Gateway Fellowship Church in Poulsbo, and at the United Methodist Church in Port Orchard. 6 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Introduction to RPM Team RPM Team operates as both a consultant for homelessness programs and a turnkey design firm involved in developing and constructing Navigation Shelters. Specializing in pre-engineered and prefabricated structures, we deploy teams faster than traditional EPC firms while remaining an economical option for planning, designing, and constructing housing projects. We deliver projects that are well-designed, energy efficient, dignified, and inspiring. RPM Team makes a point to incorporate principles of trauma informed design to enhance the experience of the clients, reduce stress, and cultivate an environment of mutual trust and support. Our team aims to eliminate homelessness by developing public-private coalitions to provide permanent homes by integrating social, health, and public services to provide support to the city’s unhoused to ensure their rehabilitation and stability. Mission: To end the cycle of homelessness •Develop public-private coalitions to strategically transition our homeless clients from the street to permanent housing units. •Collaborate with non-profits, community-based organizations, law enforcement, City, County, State, and other government entities to proactively support homeless individuals and to prevent homelessness. •Provide 24/7 case management services plan to clients during intake, transitioning, and permanent housing periods. •Build safe communities, one site at a time, throughout the city and county, with supportive counselors at community sites to ensure stability and smooth case management for clients-turned-tenants. •Eliminate the “Not-In-My-Backyard” (NIMBY) mentality in the community with education about the cause and prevention of the cycle of homelessness. RPM has worked on projects such as navigation centers, campuses, overnight shelters, dormitories, and housing that has accommodated up to 3,000 bedspace units. These projects were conducted in collaboration with government agencies: City of Sacramen- to, Phoenix, San Francisco, Huntington Beach, Reno, Manteca, and Stockton. We’ve also worked with public/private organizations such as Human Services Camp Inc., Interfaith Works, Volunteers of America, Family Promise, and Yakima Union Gospel Mission. Community Faith Meeting, California 7 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Introduction to Three Shelter Types Regulated Tent Encampment A regulated tent encampment is a designated area where individuals or groups can set up temporary shelters, typically in the form of tents, in a controlled and regulated manner. There are specific rules, guidelines, and oversight in place to govern the operation of the tent encampment. These regulations may cover aspects such as the size and layout of the tents, the provision of essential services like sanitation facilities and waste disposal, security measures, and overall safety standards. Regulated tent encampments are often established in response to homelessness or emergency situations, providing a temporary and organized solution for individuals who lack permanent housing. Local authorities or organizations may implement regulations to ensure that the encampment operates in a way that promotes safety, health, and dignity for its residents while addressing community concerns. The goal is to offer a transitional housing option while also maintaining a degree of order and accountability within the encampment. Pallet Community A pallet community typically refers to a housing arrangement where individuals or families reside in small structures or tiny homes made by Pallet Shelters. Pallet Shelters are thin foam insulated panels with metal stud material and a smooth finish. In the context of a pallet community, these pallets are creatively transformed into basic structures that can serve as makeshift homes. These communities are often associated with efforts to address homelessness or provide affordable housing solutions. The use of Pallet Shelters allows for relatively inexpensive and easily obtainable materials, Tent Encampment, Colorado Pallet Community, Delaware 8 rpm-team.com navigate a better future and the structures are often simple and quick to assemble. Pallet Shelter communities may be part of broader initiatives aimed at providing temporary or transitional housing for those in need. Sprung Shelter A Sprung Shelter refers to a type of clearspan pre-engineered structure created by Sprung Structures, featuring a distinctive design with a curved, tensioned membrane roof supported by a robust frame. These shelters are renowned for their versatility, rapid assembly, and durability. In the context of emergency response or initiatives addressing homelessness, Sprung Shelters are often employed as a solution for providing temporary congregate housing quickly and efficiently. The tensioned membrane roof offers a resilient and weather resistant cover, making these structures suitable for creating enclosed and spacious environments. Sprung Shelter, Oregon 9 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Deep Dive Analysis of Three Shelter Types Option 1: Regulated Tent Encampment Emergency “safe camps” are gaining traction with municipal agencies seeking rapidly deployable solutions for homelessness. These facilities, with roots back to the 1970s, offer a low-barrier entry point through non- congregate/non-dormitory settings, attracting residents of homeless encampments before or after their removal. Providing low-barrier pathways to permanent housing begins with offering interim housing opportunities and a clear path to permanent housing. “Permanent housing opportunities cannot always be immediately accessed, so it is important to be able to provide an immediate, interim housing opportunity (which could include shelter, bridge housing, or other temporary arrangements) without barriers to entry while permanent housing and appropriate supports are being secured.” US Inter- agency Council on Homelessness (USICH) Once residents begin to see their friends & neighbors moving into safer, dignified supportive housing or permanent housing, even the most service resistant residents are much more likely to leave their encampment or ‘rough sleeping’ living situation. The key factor is inter-agency cooperation and providing immediate supportive housing options that can provide an alternative to traditional congregate living shelters. Tent Encampments in Action One very successful example is Venice, CA where 200 people were living in tents along the iconic Venice boardwalk and which resulted in 89% have been matched to a permanent resource—82 people are now in permanent housing, and another 84 are in interim housing waiting to be placed in permanent homes. A homeless service agency, St. Joseph Center worked closely with local elected officials, the city homelessness services authority, sanitation workers and law enforcement to build relationships with their unhoused neighbors to help them understand why the boardwalk wasn’t a healthy or sustainable place to live – and they presented a clear, tangible offer of shelter and housing that was close by. Tent Encampment, Colorado 10 rpm-team.com navigate a better future “The effort on the boardwalk was no one-off. On the other side of the city, People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) successfully housed every one of the 326 people living on the lake side of MacArthur Park near Downtown LA. A handful of holdouts declined to leave before the closure, stirring fears of arrests. None were made. Even the most disillusioned, watching their fellow community members accept real offers of housing, came around to ‘yes.’ A safe camp facility may become an effective short-term alternative to living in an encampment, however it is critical for decision makers to understand and acknowledge that even a very clean, safe and well-run encampment with tents is technically speaking, not sheltering any of its residents. This is because homeless people have been displaced from their homes and are offered essentially the same level of accommodations they were living in previously in an encampment. In spite of the added security and better access to services, a sanctioned, intentional tent encampment basically provides a few more amenities and a less convenient location for unsheltered people to camp. The dilemma in equating tents with emergency or temporary housing is best illustrated on the UN and HUD definition of acceptable shelter conditions: An unsheltered homeless person lives in “a place not meant for human habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings, or on the street.” Clearly a tent is no better suited for human habitation than a car or an abandoned building. More importantly, for a government or homeless services agency to be erecting tents - even as an interim solution to a clear crisis situation- sends an highly unsympathetic message and makes for some very poor optics because it says with little uncertainty that homeless people do not deserve to live indoors with any level of basic human decency. A sanctioned encampment does not align with the City’s initiatives, and Mayor’s core values. Tent Encampment, Colorado Sanctioned Tent Encampment, California 11 rpm-team.com navigate a better future In contrast to the rules that govern many aspects of shelter stays, staying in an encampment means that people can generally come and go as they please. “The ability to exercise autonomy and freedom of movement appears to be a powerful factor that draws some people to encampments” (Lutz, 2015; National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2014; Sparks, 2017a.). This independence is sometimes eroded in communities that “normalize” encampments, introducing regulations that restrict residents’ activities in the process. When that happens, encampments may in effect become an extension of the same shelter system that people reject in favor of encampments (Herring, 2014; Speer, 2018a). Courts have found that depriving homeless people of the rights to perform survival activities in public spaces when no alternatives are available violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution (Kieschnick, 2018; National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2014). In Martin v. City of Boise, the court held that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property.” Making it difficult for cities to enforce anti-camping laws. Health Implications of Encampments Tent encampment sites are a growing concern in cities across the United States. These makeshift shelters, often located on cold, hard ground, rarely offer any insulation or protection from the elements. With limited heating options and inadequate sanitation facilities, they pose a significant risk to the public health of both residents and the sur- rounding community. Tent encampments have been proven to negatively affect health as per a NIH study, “Mortality rates among the homeless under cold stress show the highest relative risk in comparison to deaths among the homeless occurring during thermo-neutral conditions. This indicates a significant risk of excessive mortality among the homeless under cold stress.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti- cles/PMC5739436/ Tent Encampment, California 12 rpm-team.com navigate a better future With the information provided on sanctioned tent encampments, this solution does not align with the initiatives and values of the City. A tent encampment type solution does not provide dignity, health safety, public safety, nor help to dispel the stigma surrounding visible homelessness. Tent encampments are not comparable to Pallet communities and Sprung shelter sites for the following reasons: they don’t provide shelter, they don’t fall in line with national definitions of shelters, they are unhealthy, unsafe, and become a city sponsored public health situation; further perpetuating the stigma of homelessness. Tent Encampment, Tennessee 13 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Comparisons: Pallet Communities & Sprung Shelters Option 2: Pallet Communities Lighter-duty modular units like Pallet Shelters, popularized by the “tiny house movement,” have become a convenient option for some municipal agencies. These prefabricated sleeping cabins offer a quick way to set up an urban campground, providing a temporary solution for unhoused people displaced by encampment bans and similar ordinances restricting public sleeping or loitering. The recent US Supreme Court rulings limiting such bans unless cities can provide sufficient alternative (and voluntary) living arrangements has created a robust industry for sleeping cabins and many new manufacturing companies have popped up to meet the growing demand. Boasting nearly 2,700 units across 13 states, Pallet Shelters offer the quickest solution for quick-build emergency shelters. Their success stems from a unique combination of minimal site development which allows for rapid construction, and a commitment to employing recently unhoused individuals. However, the shortcuts to quick construction can have long-term impacts on the dignity of a community. Pallet Shelter Safety and Operations & Maintenance Pallet and other light-duty modular sleeping units are not designed for long term use and are easily damaged and somewhat difficult to repair with standard building materials. Sleeping units are not designed for relocation to future sites and often get damaged in transit. Individual sleeping units are also more difficult to monitor for safety and enforcing facility rules, i.e. smoking and cooking in unit; illicit activities and drug & alcohol abuse. Because of this it creates an increased opportunity for residents to return to their own ways because of the privacy the unit allows. Once a resident Pallet Community, Oregon Pallet Community, Oregon 14 rpm-team.com navigate a better future discovered breaking these rules they will be removed from the site and be back on the street, continuing the cycle of homelessness. General maintenance can also be more difficult due to the large number of individual units which require inspections of mechanical units, smoke detectors, and electrical circuit overloading with multiple appliances. Smoke detectors and fire extinguishers are easily disabled and vandalized by residents. Individual mechanical units are typically low efficiency and require regular filter changes and frequent maintenance due to damage and over-use. The interior of the Pallet shelter is also unrefined. The structures have not been adequately tested for fire resistance, and several sites have caught fire due to the Pallet materials’ propensity to ignite when a flame is nearby. Additionally, if the shelter is not perfectly flat, its doors will catch and not open properly. Since Pallet shelters are not inspected in advance, the interior wiring requires ongoing inspections, making the structures high maintenance. Another drawback of Pallet shelters is that they have to be built on-site and deteriorate faster when relocated. Although Pallet shelters were created with the best intentions, they are ultimately not conducive to dignified semi-permanent living space. Modular sleeping units do not contain individual bathrooms or showers and shared facilities must be accessed by walking outdoors. This is a security problem, particularly during nighttime hours for women, seniors and people with disabilities. Exterior-only access to shared bathroom and shower facilities is also problematic for mixed populations such as trauma and abuse victims, transgender and mentally ill clients. Aside from the safety concern of Pallet Community Fire, Oakland, California Pallet Shelter, California 15 rpm-team.com navigate a better future using restrooms at night, there is the health concern of traveling outside in freezing temperatures from a shower to your unit, which has been known to cause negative health effects due to the exposure to cold in a damp environment, per NILH standards earlier referenced. Security Security must be 24/7 due to the setup and ongoing monitoring of all pallet units and their housed clients along with case manager/s and or staff operating pallet communities. Security personnel must be able to inspect unit interiors to ensure conformance with program or to remove residents from premises from unit tampering, drug & alcohol abuse. Staffing of security must run in shifts of 8 hours so that security will be conscious and alert with any areas of concern and or alarming matters or even as simple as check-ins and or follow-up to client questions for safety. Law enforcement must have a direct line of communication with security at all times for the true safety of all clients housed in the pallet structure. Security must also be able to understand the population of clients that are housed and be able to empathize with scenarios and or situations that arise and be able to understand how to de-escalate vs escalate a situation and or concern. The Security role also helps with an extra set of eyes and ears for day-to-day operations and awareness of services being implemented. Client Health, Safety and Hygiene Providing portable restrooms is a must for a pallet community to make sure all clients have access to clean and sanitized facilities for their own health and hygiene. Clients must be provided a safe and clean space for their dignity and well-being aside from their sleeping unit so these sites need to be paired with some kind of community building. Sanitation should be a top priority within the layout of a pallet community, re- Pallet Site, Unknown 16 rpm-team.com navigate a better future strooms should be cleaned on a daily basis and in close proximity to the sleeping units. All pallet units should be inspected and cared for by not only the client but also the operator to ensure that living conditions are environmentally safe and healthy and to be aware of all hazardous conditions that will create damage to the pallet units. Weather also plays a significant role in how the wear and tear of these units are safe havens for clients because the majority of units are in the elements outdoors. Staff could have difficulty in making sure that clients are protected from outside elements, such as weather, crime, and health due to the lack of visibility that comes with individual private spaces. Staffing and Operations Staffing and operations are the keys to the success or failure of a working pallet community. Staffing must provide an intake-like process for check-in and out of units. The layout of the Pallet community should always be designed with the ultimate goal of no blind spots and or block-off areas where staff and clients would be concerned about being in a no-exit zone. Understanding that operations should be geared towards client-centered hours and not regular business center hours. Operations are meant to help clients sunset away from pallets into more permanent supporting housing. Pallet Shelter Site Efficiency and Flexibility Single-occupant, sleeping units are much smaller than the popular tiny houses, and do not include a living space, storage closets, kitchen or dining areas. Modular sleeping units are nearly all Type V-B, non fire-protected construction using combustible mate- rials such as wood, composite plastic or fiberglass wall panels. Without fire-protected construction these units must be separated by a minimum of 10 feet in all directions to meet building and fire codes in order to prevent fire spread from one unit to another. This results in an effective footprint of approximately 64 square feet per dwelling unit but an ineffective maximum of 30-40 units per acre. Light duty tiny houses are also not designed to be stacked and all non-congregate tiny house shelters are limited to single story structures. Pallet communities depending on site and size will differ from the number of units it can hold or place within community design. Weather elements and conditions of where the pallet community is placed will also have either a positive or negative impact on the longevity and wear and tear of units. The size of the pallet (unit) will also determine how many can be placed or built within the design of the community that is trying to be built to meet the needs of cities and or counties. The site chosen by the CIty is unable to fit 100 people due to the size restrictions individual sleeping cabins present. Pallet Shelter Neighborhood Impact Tiny house sleeping units are not a standard building typology and do not fit into the standard planning and zoning design guidelines in most cities. Modular sleeping unit 17 rpm-team.com navigate a better future sites often require a special use permit or land use zoning variance, which generally require public hearings and adds two to three months to the development schedule. Pallet communities also visually resemble itinerant camps and do not elicit a sense of permanence or human dignity. The typical Pallet size is 8 ft by 10 ft, which is smaller than a children’s bedroom. Pallet Shelter sites often do not provide a central day use facility that is conditioned and large enough to accommodate all the residents. Without these community spaces, these sites can often feel more isolating than their previous encampment where their friends and support system were. Pallet have cold, sharp edges, and their thin walls are only 1.5 inches thick. Because they don’t have a closed envelope system, air gaps are visible from the interior. Their lack of insulation makes it very difficult to heat the structures in the winter and cool them in the summer, which generates significant energy costs. Pallet shelters are also assembled with 500-700 tech screws that penetrate the structural envelope, creating many leak points. As a result, occupants frequently have to cover their homes with tarps after just one season of use to mitigate leaks from rain. From a neighborhood perspective Pallet Shelters are easily visible from the street and the overall site rarely looks clean and evokes the encampment feel that communities want to move away from. Unfortunately, Pallet Shelters have a negative track record and propensity for fires. Fires have been reported at Pallet sites in Oakland, Los Angeles, and Banning. •https://crosscut.com/news/2022/03/oakland-fire-tiny-home-village-turns-spotlight-wa- company •https://kesq.com/news/2020/12/27/38-banning-residents-displaced-after-fire-destroys- newly-built-temporary-homes/ •https://ktla.com/news/local-news/15-tiny-houses-for-veterans-go-up-in-flames-in-west- los-angeles 18 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Pallet Shelter Testimonials & Community Feedback Testimonial of a Pallet Shelter resident in Everett, WA, Jaime Adams, Age 43. “Although the site is supposed to have case managers, the hours are not consistent, along with the laundry services. Inside, most of the time the heaters work, sometimes they can fail and it will be freezing until they replace it, but the heaters are at waist level which makes no sense because the floors are not insulated and the floors are freezing at night, my door handle has been broken so it cannot lock that’s why I call it the dry erase board hut… the operators are more concerned about items around our units then the services, a site manager makes routine checks and puts notes on our units to put them away or they’ll be thrown away by 3pm. They’re more focused on not making this look like a shanty town then on us.” Jaimie’s testimonial illustrates a considerable deficiency with pallet shelters; even with proper oversight for operations, the units themselves fail quickly and add to the stress for the residents occupying them. Patrick Newman, a member of the public, echo’s Jaime’s feelings with his letter to the editor stating, “In any case, for the homeless person “lucky” enough to procure a 64 square-foot Pallet shelter, this is one step removed from utter destitution. Being one step removed from utter destitution hardly qualifies as pleasurable.” https://www.chicoer.com/2022/09/11/letter-where-is-the-pleasure-in-shelter-life/ 19 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Option 3: Sprung Shelters Homeless shelters are a type of homeless service agency that will provide temporary residence for all those in need. Shelters exist to provide residents with safety and protection from exposure to the weather while simultaneously reducing the environmental impact on the community, providing respite and services to the residents, and a hygienic bathroom and shower area. Homeless shelters with services are best executed with a Sprung Structure, an energy efficient clear span tension membrane structure. Sprung incorporates energy- efficient components, such as insulation, high-performance windows, and energy- efficient lighting, which can help reduce the building’s overall energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Sprung Structures are exceptionally airtight, minimizing heat or cooling loss. They utilize formaldehyde- free fiberglass insulation to insulate their structures, adding foil backing to increase efficiency and assist in the containment of radiant energy. Sprung also incorporates skylights and windows to take advantage of natural light and reduce power consumption. The shape of the Sprung Structure with the tall interior ceilings enable a more dense floor plan without feeling claustrophobic, fitting more residents relative to other construction types like modular trailers. With the tall ceilings also comes natural light which offers a bright voluminous living space, becoming a more dignified and humanistic facility. Sprung Shelter Safety and Operations & Maintenance Sprung Shelters provide a commercial or light industrial level of durability & require very low maintenance for the building enclosure. Dormitories and day rooms in Sprung Shelters generally use 1-2 high efficiency package heat pump mechanical units which are low maintenance and offer 10-15 year manufacturer warranties. Fabric buildings include standard a continuous daylight panel at the roof ridge which provides ample natural light which creates and airy, welcoming space that feel significantly larger than it actually is. Sprung Shelter, Oregon 20 rpm-team.com navigate a better future The use of light sensors and dimmable fixtures further reduce energy use when there is sufficient daylight. The Sprung Shelter option offers a regulated open space, climate controls and thus disease prevention is managed at a staff level, versus an individual (resident) level, adding to the positive health impacts of the facility. Congregate dormitories with centralized & shared Navigation Center day rooms and dining facilities are highly staff-efficient because staff and clients are regularly interacting. This results in increased safety for staff and clients by reducing the response time for emergency situations through visual monitoring and a limited number of building entry points. Navigation Centers with Dormitory buildings also provide more convenient and safe access to restrooms and showers during day and nighttime hours without ever having to leave the facility, meaning there is not outdoor exposure to use a restroom in a Sprung Shelter. Direct access to staff and security offices is also easily accommodated in a shared Navigation Center building. Men, women and disabled clients can be housed in separate buildings in a congregate dormitory setting and sub-groups such as couples, transgender individuals can be further segregated using interior privacy partitions. Access to restrooms and common spaces for individuals with disabilities is also more convenient in a congregate living building. Security Security must be 24/7 due to the setup and ongoing monitoring of all housed clients along with the case managers. Staffing of security must run in shifts of 8 hours so that security will be conscious and alert with any areas of concern and or alarming matters or even as simple as check-ins and or follow-up to client questions for safety. Law enforcement must have a direct line of communication with security at all times for the true safety of all clients housed. Sprung Interior Sprung Interior Plan by Opsis 21 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Client Health, Safety and Hygiene Sanitation should be a top priority within the design and the layout of the whole struc- ture and should be cleaned on a daily basis. The goal for clients is to come off the streets and although it is an enclosed Sprung shelter, it’s not meant to be a shelter for the long term, but a more effective and safer haven for us all. Staff will be able to help clients and protect them from outside elements, such as: weather, crime, and violence. Staffing and Operations Centralizing operations under one roof can lead to a number of benefits for both clients and service providers. Day to day operations are streamlined and efficiency is improved resulting in better outcomes and less stress. The intake process occurs indoors with easy access to restrooms, lounges and most importantly, respite from the outside elements. The layout should always be designed with the ultimate goal of no blind spots or block-off areas, where staff and clients would be concerned about being in a no-exit zone. Operations are meant to help clients sunset away from pallets into more permanent supporting housing and a Sprung Shelter is a more appropriate starting point given the weather elements in Bremerton. Sprung Shelter Site Efficiency and Flexibility Congregate dormitory buildings are the most efficient way to maximize the number of dwelling units/beds on a given site. A typical site with dormitory only sleeping can provides approximately 400 beds per acre of land and can be designed to fit virtually any site size or shape and a 100- bed dormitory can be placed on a site that is less than half an acre. The modular design of tension fabric buildings also allow for easy expansion in the future to provide additional beds, staff offices or day use and dining spaces. The column free design means that the interior build out and environments can change over time, to evolve with the demographic of the population, or to change its use Sprung Shelter, Washington Sprung Shelter, California 22 rpm-team.com navigate a better future completely to transition into a community center. The modular nature of the components used allow for easy expansion. The aluminum substructure of a Sprung Shelter allows an all bolt assembly which enables the structure to be relocatable, at the end of the Sprung Shelter life the structure could be disassembled and relocated to another city location to serve a new purpose. Neighborhood Impact When designed properly, a shared, congregate living facility can help create a sense of shared purpose & belonging and in general, larger buildings feel more traditional than individual sleeping units. Sprung Shelters are flexible in design to allow traditional architectural components to be integrated like glass entry doors, storefront glazing, and fun curves, alcoves, and entry ways. The Sprung Shelter is code compliant and satisfies local zoning and building codes. Stigma Around Crime Concerns about crime near shelters are understandable, but Sprung shelters can actually bring positive change. While they may initially face opposition, Navigation Centers with ongoing operations often see a decrease in loitering and surrounding encampments. This is because they introduce much-needed oversight that wasn’t there before, both from the center itself and from law enforcement. This draws unsheltered individuals towards resources and support, while also making it easier for police to distinguish between genuine criminal activity and issues related to homelessness. Yes, there’s a stigma around shelters, but the reality is, they can lead to a safer environment for everyone. Relevant Research •A three-year study on the effect of housing navigation centers on recidivism found that 70% of justice-involved individuals who received housing at the HNC exited to permanent housing, with a recidivism rate of 9.6% compared to the national average of 68%. Navigating Homelessness: The Effect Of Housing Navigation Centers On Recidivism, Jun 12, 2023. https://fas.org/publication/navigating-homelessness-the- effect-of-housing-navigation-centers-on-recidivism/ •3/4 Navigation Centers experienced a decrease in crime rates in San Francisco: Di- vision Circle by 17%, Bayshore by 4%, and Bryant Street by 11%. https://sf.curbed. com/2019/11/21/20976211/navigation-centers-san-francisco-crime-rates-sf •Homeless shelters are often better for neighborhoods than tent encampments and can lead to a decrease in crime. https://dignitymoves.org/dispelling-the-myth-home- less-shelters-and-crime-rates/ •Temporary homeless shelters are designed to replace tent encampments and provide 23 rpm-team.com navigate a better future a safer, more controlled environment. •Studies have shown that the opening of homeless shelters does not result in an increase in crime rates. In some cases, crime rates have actually decreased after the establishment of homeless shelters, as they provide stability and reduce the need for individuals to resort to criminal activities. https://www.kqed.org/news/11942734/ emergency-calls-complaints-are-down-near-san-joses-temporary-housing-sites- so-why-are-they-still-so-politically-risky •Providing shelter for homeless individuals can help address the root causes of crime and improve the safety and well-being of both the homeless population and the surrounding community. https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/ show/6215-homelessness-crime-california/ •A 2018 study by the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in which 255 unhoused people were interviewed over a 24 month period, the most frequent charges fell into the category of “homeless status offenses.” These are offenses which result “from behaviors intrinsic to homelessness.” Those include “loitering,” “vagrancy,” and “trespassing,” all of which are largely unavoidable for people who have nowhere to go. https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/ show/6215-homelessness-crime-california/ •The Frisc, a San Francisco based media outlet conducted a study, analyzing crime reports from areas surrounding Navigation Centers that opened between 2015 and 2018 and operated for at least 12 months. Of the eight centers analyzed, incident rates either decreased or stayed relatively flat after the Navigation Centers opened for five of them. Rates increased around three centers. According to Mike Males, a senior research fellow at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the random nature of increases and decreases after opening indicates that Navigation Centers cannot be shown to increase crime. •The study considered control areas outside the 500-foot radius around each Navigation Center to compare incident rates slightly farther away. In most cases, adding control areas did not significantly change the data, with one control area showing a notable rise in incidents. •The conclusion drawn is that whether immediately close by or slightly farther away, there is no pattern of rising crime in the months following the opening of a Naviga- tion Center. https://thefrisc.com/sfs-specialized-homeless-shelters-do-not-bring- more-crime-no-matter-what-angry-neighbors-say-d7322054a568 •“Navigation Center Neighborhood Impact Study” https://www.fremontforeveryone. com/s/Navigation-Center-Neighborhood-Impacts-Final-Report.pdf •Executive Summary: The City and County of San Francisco is in the process of expanding its network of navigation centers, an updated version of a traditional homeless shelter. However, plans to open new centers are sometimes met with opposition from people who live or work nearby. Such opposition has blocked plans 24 rpm-team.com navigate a better future to open similar sites in San Francisco and impedes the city’s ability to provide homeless services. People opposed to navigation centers and shelters expressed concern that they might have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, such as by increasing crime, increasing visible homelessness, or decreasing property values. This report examines whether these impacts occur in practice. •Navigation Centers Have No Effect on Neighborhood Crime: An analysis of San Francisco Police Department data indicated that navigation centers have no effect on neighborhood crime. This analysis revealed that the number of crimes occurring near navigation centers was approximately equal to the number of crimes occurring at similar locations without centers. A survey of people living and working near navigation centers also indicated that navigation center presence is unrelated to neighborhood crime. Over half of surveyed community members believed that neighborhood crime levels had stayed the same since a navigation center opened nearby, and felt just as safe in the area as they had previously. •Navigation Centers Have No Effect on Property Values: Property values were rising in all neighborhoods, regardless of navigation center presence. The Mission saw an especially large increase in property values, despite being the only neighborhood hosting multiple navigation centers. Neighbors living within one block of the navigation centers did not believe that the centers had any effect on the value of their property. •Closing: This study provides evidence that navigation centers do not have negative impacts on the neighborhoods where they are located. In some cases, housed resi- dents may even benefit from having a homeless service site nearby. This shows that the city does not need to compromise the well-being of housed residents in order to provide support for their homeless neighbors. It is my hope that information from this report will enrich dialogue with community members and policymakers interested in the neighborhood impacts of homeless service sites, and ultimately contribute to San Francisco’s efforts to reduce homelessness. RPM Addressing statistics that say shelters “increase” crime. An explanation why residents and older studies consider that there is an increased crime rate near shelters is a result of increased police presence around shelters alongside the criminalization of homelessness (due to using the shelters’ existence against “illegal” encampments) or anti-homeless laws. As well as the police addressing many of the residents’ complaints (fear, bigotry, etc.) about the unhoused. So, the numbers could mean that since there are more reports = more crime in the area. •A supply of shelter beds insufficient to meet the demand; this problem may be exacerbated by limited funding for emergency shelters and by community opposition to creating new or expanded shelter and bridge housing facilities or permanent supportive housing. •Out of the three, Sprung Shelter best aligns with the intent of the above provided information. It is the only option that truly offers an open, transparent, and 25 rpm-team.com navigate a better future controlled setting for the residents ensuring safety to the public of the surrounding neighborhood. Stigma Around the High Cost of Temporary Solutions According to the US Inter-agency Council on Homelessness report, Ending Homelessness for People in Encampments: Advancing the Dialogue 2 (2015), there is a persistent concern that costly homeless encampment operations can prevent funding from going directly to permanent housing and “distract communities from focusing on” more permanent solutions. In one particular RAND study, researchers found that receiving supportive housing reduced the costs for public services by nearly 60 percent, reiterating the point that it is more cost effective to house people experiencing homelessness. (From 2019 Andre House report) https://andrehouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Unsheltered- Perspectives.pdf The cost of doing nothing also comes with a large price tag to local agencies and their taxpayer base. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, someone experiencing chronic homelessness costs taxpayers an average of $35,578 per year, largely as a result of frequent emergency room visits and other health-related services; arrests and associated court costs. A lack of low barrier shelter beds is a primary determinant in the inability of outreach workers to get the unhoused into shelters. “When asked about outreach experiences with case managers, 52 out of 100 people described how they’ve never been offered a place to stay by a service provider or case manager.” (2019 Andre House Interviews) 26 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Our Recommendation: Sprung Shelter After reviewing the scope of the homelessness issue in Bremerton, and with consideration of the number of clients that seek shelter at the Salvation Army, RPM recommends that the City select a shelter type that accommodates 75-100 clients. This capacity will enable the City to maintain consistently open beds such that persons experiencing homelessness in Bremerton will have an emergency resource available. Available shelter on the first night of homelessness is a safety net that prevents your citizens from spending the night outside making them vulnerable to victimization. Additionally, shelter options that do not provide enough capacity will make chapter 9.32 of the Bremerton Municipal Code titled “Unauthorized Camping” non-enforceable creating an environment where those that chose to be criminal vagrants will have an avenue to exploit your streets and citizens. A Sprung Shelter can provide the capacity that Bremerton needs while better meeting several other critical considerations for a successful shelter model than the regulated tent encampment or the pallet community. Among those considerations are: •regulated open space with climate and environmental controls that aids in disease prevention •alignment with the 2019 Homeless Crisis and Housing plan •true low barrier entry •fully bringing folks “inside” Additionally, the Sprung Shelter is a relocatable asset that is designed to be adapted and reused. This affords the City the options to alter its interior configuration to better meet emerging needs of the housing crisis, convert to a new use on site, or relocate to a new site entirely. RPM does not recommend a regulated encampment for addressing Bremerton’s crisis. While it would be the simplest and least expensive to construct, tent encampments do not provide adequate shelter, don’t comply with the city’s health standards and do not provide any sheltered spaces for much needed services and community space. 27 rpm-team.com navigate a better future While a pallet community can be a useful piece of a holistic housing crisis response, it does not adequately provide the safety net that Bremerton requires. Additionally, the proposed layout for the Oyster Bay Site would only accommodate around 40 units. Expanding the site to accommodate 75 - 100 units would increase the costs of site development, shelter construction, and operations such that it would significantly exceed the cost (in all categories) of the Sprung Shelter model. A more thorough analysis of each of the three shelter types is provided in the preceding sections. 28 rpm-team.com navigate a better future Summary of Bremerton’s Initiatives Related to Homelessness Mayor’s 2023 Initiatives The 2023 initiatives outline a focused approach to address critical issues facing the community, prioritizing homelessness prevention, enhancing public safety, and strengthening mental health support. To combat homelessness, the Mayor proposes exploring innovative shelter options, including temporary and permanent facilities, while expanding the Block Watch program to empower residents in crime prevention. Additionally, the Mayor commits to continuing the Navigator Program, which provides crisis intervention and connects individuals with mental health and addiction services. In the realm of public safety, the Mayor reaffirms support for the ‘Stand By Me’ program, ensuring comprehensive care for homeless and at-risk individuals. City of Bremerton 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Element 3: Housing, Vision, Goals & Policies H2(E) Support efforts to provide for a variety of housing options such as emergency group housing, homeless shelters and short term housing to meet the needs of those in the lower income categories. “In 2023, Fentanyl continues to victimize our most vulnerable, tear apart families, and kill at an alarming rate.” “The President’s supplemental funding request would also allocate $1.5 billion in grant funding to localities through the Department of Health and Human Services’ State Opioid Response (SOR) grant program.” “Fentanyl Supplemental Request Letter” signed November 14, 2023, Bremerton Mayor Wheeler along with other Mayors rep- resenting millions of citizens sent letter to Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries, Schumer, and McConnell. Mayor Wheeler 29 Published for December 13 Study Session ITEM A8 – Public Comments From: Anthony Ives <aives@kcr.org> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 7:48 PM Cc: Jill Stanton <JStanton@bremertonhousing.org>; Joe Crain <joe@svdpaul.org> Subject: Other options Dear Team, Together, we have decided to share ideas with the Council. Over the last two months, this idea has been presented by a group of us that all have a vested interest in seeing this project succeed and assisting residents, all residents, of Kitsap County. There are always details to work out, and even there are alternatives to how this could get done. But we are confident that this is a viable approach. We thank you for your attention and trust. Go Seahawks! Tony Ives Executive Director Kitsap Community Resources 845 8th Street Bremerton, WA 98337 www.kcr.org 360.473.2013 (office) 2 Sustainable Low-Barrier Emergency Shelter Proposal Consideration for proposal The city has no current sustainable emergency shelter plan. We are in the unfortunate situation where our region does not have a sustainable low-barrier emergency shelter plan in place. Until now, we have utilized stop- gap transient solutions that have proven unsustainable over the long term. Benevolent, generous organizations have stepped up to meet seasonal challenges during times of inclement weather or through the pandemic. However, we are still very much in a reactionary posture in terms of providing a sustainable and humane low barrier/rapid entry emergency shelter plan for our community. Ultimately, the goal would be to have emergency shelter options that prepare people to move through the housing continuum leading to permanent housing. (Recent Encampment) Proposal A hybrid shelter option that includes an open air pallet type low-barrier emergency shelter for longer term transitional living combined with a small congregate shelter for quick and very short-term entry into the housing continuum is a viable solution to face this current challenge while preparing us for future situations ultimately leading to permanent homes for people exiting unhoused situations. TWO LOCATIONS Any type of shelter over 60 beds in one location is difficult to manage and exacerbates risk to both those experiencing homelessness, staff, and surrounding communities. We are proposing two locations to decrease the overall impact to surrounding communities and increase reach to those we will serve (i.e. one on either side of our county). To further minimize impact and increase feasibility for this model, each location can be set up on as little as ½ an acre. Community outreach and community impact must be a part of the location selection process as well as the logistical necessities. Several locations have been identified for consideration. HYBRID PALLET/QUONSET SHELTER MODEL Pallet shelters have proven success in providing safe and secure solutions, while simultaneously upholding the highest level of dignity for those being sheltered. Each Pallet shelter is 70sqft, providing plenty of space for up to two people (if necessary). Combined with a small (20 bed) congregate shelter Quonset hut on one of the proposed locations allows for low-barrier rapid entry for those situations that we frequently encounter. The site includes access to bathrooms, water, heat/AC, and secure amnesty boxes all within a secure perimeter fence. 24/7 security with a single entry/exit point is recommended. COST We have obtained cost estimates from Pallet and one 40-unit shelter area is $1.4M including infrastructure. Quonset huts are very inexpensive and provide durability and low maintenance and are easily included in the estimate listed above. Two locations would cost approximately $2.8M to $3.5M based on estimates provided by PalletShelter.com (see attachment). Land acquisition, contracted security, and operational costs are not included in this estimate. INTAKE AND CASE MANA GEMENT The process for access to an emergency shelter is equally as important as the physical structure itself. A holistic approach is considered here as we look to secure a housing first concept while simultaneously preparing each individual for their journey through the housing continuum with permanent and sustainable housing being the end goal. Keeping the goal in mind, each person will be assigned a case manager upon entry to determine how best to meet their unique needs. Depending on availability and time of entry, someone may enter into a Pallet shelter within the first 24hrs. If access is needed outside of typical working hours, they can be provided a safe warm bed within the Quonset hut immediately and then be assigned a Case Manager and entry into a Pallet shelter within 72hrs (for weekend entry). Providing Case Management to each person is key to success and progress through the housing continuum. Emergency shelters are step one in a much longer journey for each individual. It is important that the expectation is set from the very beginning that this is a temporary stay where we encourage and support each person in finding more permanent solutions that we are working to create throughout our county. Through KCR and other supportive agencies such as Salvation Army and St. Vincent de Paul, collaborative efforts will be combined to find the most favorable outcomes for each individual as they prepare their transition into permanent housing. When they are ready, opportunities for permanent housing will be provided through agencies that have subsidized housing and/or voucher rental assistance primarily our region’s housing authorities. Conclusion This model is a sustainable solution that can be utilized well into the future through collaboration with all partners along the housing continuum. Several organizations along the housing continuum should come together to We want to ensure we are poised to meet the challenges of tomorrow while simultaneously solving this immediate need. This solution will equip our community to move away from high-risk reactionary responses and to adopt more of a proactive posture when it comes to housing the most vulnerable in our community. (Modular, durable construction allows for ease of construction and flexible deployment.) (Addendum 1) (Addendum 2) Site Specific Costs Service Service # of Units Labor Cost Material Cost Cost Per Unit Total Cost See descriptions below and wiring diagrams in folder 120v 30 amp service for each 70/120 SQFT Unit 32 700$ 200$ 900$ 28,800$ 240v 150amp service for each standard bathroom (200amp breaker)1 $ 1,000 $ 800 1,800$ 1,800$ 240v 90amp service for each accessible bathroom 1 $ 1,000 $ 800 1,800$ 1,800$ 240v 400amp split service for each Laundry (2 200amp breakers)1 $ 2,000 $ 1,600 3,600$ 3,600$ (3) 120v 30amp connections for each 400 SQFT Unit, 2 120v and 1 240v for 800)1 $ 1,500 $ 1,000 2,500$ 2,500$ Water to bathrooms and laundry See fixture value document, drawings, and installation guide.3 $ 6,000 $ 2,000 8,000$ 24,000$ Sewer from bathrooms/laundry See drawings, and installation guide.3 $ 4,000 $ 2,000 6,000$ 18,000$ Installation of toilets and sinks for bathrooms 2 toilets/sinks for each bathroom (these are provided but not installed by Pallet)2 $ 2,000 2,000$ 4,000$ Purchase and installation of Washer/Dryers (4 each per laundry)Average cost is $8k for washer/dryers. Installation varies 1 $ 3,200 $ 8,000 11,200$ 11,200$ Anchoring 4 per structure. 200 lbs for standard, 1200 lbs for HD on each corner (Florida, Coastal SE) of downward force on each corner of each unit (see infrastructure doc for specifics). Recommend duckbill anchors 144 $ 30 $ 20 50$ 7,200$ Concrete Pad for 400 SQFT Unit 4" concrete pad (see drawing for dimensions) 1 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 4,500$ 4,500$ Concrete Pad for 800 SQFT Unit 4" concrete pad (see drawing for dimensions)0 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 9,000$ -$ Ramps leading into bathrooms, laundry 9.5" rise, 1 per accessible bathrooms, laundry structure. Recommend widely available aluminum ramp 2 $ 300 $ 2,000 2,300$ 4,600$ Stairs leading into bathrooms 9.5" rise, 2 per standard, 1 per accessible restroom 3 $ 100 $ 400 500$ 1,500$ ADA Ramps (1 per 20 64/100SQFT Units)Common options are adjustable aluminum ramp, concrete/asphalt pad 2 $ 25 $ 100 125$ 250$ ADA Ramps for 400s/800s Common options are adjustable aluminum ramp, concrete/asphalt pad. 2 per structure.2 $ 25 $ 100 $ 125 250$ Electrical service to site Includes but not limited to electrical infrastructure upgrades, temp power poles, breaker boxes for site. Refer to electrical service calculator for electrical requirement estimate $ 46,200 $ 50,050 96,250$ Site grading (if necessary) Site should be relatively flat, either gravel, concrete, or asphalt $ 30,000 30,000$ Site clearing If necessary, removing existing structures, debris, etc $ 5,000 5,000$ Privacy fencing around site perimeter Cost for fencing varies by location $ 3,753 $ 8,757 12,510$ Gating for ingress/egress 2 'people' gates with panic bars, one emergency vehicle access gate $ 1,000 $ 5,000 6,000$ Lighting for site Lights along walkways and overhead if not present $ 6,400 $ 6,400 12,800$ ADA Walking Paths If site is not concrete/asphalt $ 1,600 $ 960 2,560$ Basic hardscape/gravel and striping for staff and resident parking $ 1,500 $ 500 2,000$ Seating, shade structures $ 4,800 4,800$ Pet Enclosure $ 500 $ 2,000 2,500$ Forklift for delivery and assembly Typical cost is ~$500 per day. One day for every 10 64s,100s, 2 days for each 400, for each 800. Labor is included in Pallet assembly services $ 2,240 2,240$ Trash Enclosure $ 7,000 7,000$ Permit fees If required by city $ - $ - -$ $ 297,660.00 The items above represent a compilation of products and services commonly purchased and/or required in Pallet shelter villages. Every village site is unique and may involve different products and services. This list is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive; it is merely a tool to help plan for the different circumstances our customers may encounter in planning their Pallet village site. Pallet Infrastructure Budget Estimate General Site Costs Total Conduit run to subpanel in each unit and hardwire connection. This is either trenched, run along the ground, overhead, or occasionally is laid within a PTL walkway between structures Unit Cost From: Keith Stuessi <keith.stuessi@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 7:58 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Health Concerns with Congregate Shelter City Council, Please see atached leter that was published in the Kitsap Sun today. I just want to make sure you are aware of the medical/health concerns with the proposed congregate shelters in Bremerton. Please let me know if you have any ques�ons. Very Respec�ully, Dr. Keith Stuessi, CAPT (Ret), USN Building a Congregate Shelter Endangers Bremerton’s Public Health I appreciate the coverage the Sun has provided about the proposed homeless shelter plan but I am concerned that the City of Bremerton doesn’t understand the significant health issues surrounding congregate shelters. A congregate shelter has large open spaces with bunks for sleeping. It requires people to share showers and laundry and residents must exit each morning. People experiencing homelessness dispropor�onately suffer from untreated chronic medical condi�ons and have barriers to accessing medical care. This means they are more vulnerable to outbreaks of highly communicable diseases such as COVID-19 and Hepa��s A, especially in open spaces like congregate shelters. Disease outbreaks don’t stay within a shelter. In another Navy town, San Diego, they experienced a major outbreak of Hepa��s A in 2017 that started with the unhoused. It resulted in 592 cases and 20 deaths. San Diego is a bigger city, but Bremerton should keep these numbers in mind – an outbreak that began with the unhoused took $12 million dollars and two years to get under control. It affected all City sidewalks, parks, libraries, and any business or service where people touched a shared resource. Congregate shelters have become an undesirable solu�on due to health and safety concerns and o�en come with insurmountable barriers for those experiencing homelessness. A beter op�on is mul�ple small pallet shelter facili�es that provide a place to return each night, offer flexibility in trea�ng health outbreaks and put the unhoused on the pathway to permanent housing.  Dr. Keith Stuessi, CAPT (Ret), USN 1434 Madrona Point Drive Bremerton, WA 98312 (760) 331 - 7203 From: Bree Medley <bree@brandtdesigninc.com> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 8:31 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Bremerton's Homeless Shelter Council members, Thank you for the �me you gave to your cons�tuents at Wednesday night’s council mee�ng. The issue of housing our unhoused ci�zens is a hugely important issue and I do hope that you will demand clear, well planned and meaningful solu�on of the Mayor. This is too important to be decided in a vacuum, a�er only one study session. Respec�ully, Bree Medley The Brandt Design Group 66 Bell Street, Unit #1 Seattle, WA 98121 www.brandtdesigninc.com 206.239.0850 (o) 206.595.9357 (c) 6016 Peregrine Ct Bremerton, WA 98312 December 9, 2023 City Council Office 345 6th St., Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 Subj: A proposal for housing the homeless Dear City Council, Every day I see homeless men, ad occasionally homeless women wandering the streets. I see sidewalk tents and broken down RVs. I here talk of building “�ny house” communi�es and purchasing hotels to temporarily house these homeless individuals. When I have spoken with them their main concern is just having a place to sleep that provides shelter from the elements. As a career military veteran with 31 years service in both the Army and the Navy I ask, “Has anyone on the City Council considered the establishment of military style open bay barracks to provide shelter for these homeless people?” An average World War 2 barracks would easily hold 40 individuals, providing them with a bunk, wall locker, footlocker, toilets, sinks, and showers. These facili�es would be cheaper to build and maintain than the proposed �ny homes or temporary hotels. Having a warm place to sleep and access to basic hygiene facili�es would help provide a sense of dignity which is lost when living in the squaller of tent ci�es. What business would hire a person who hasn’t bathed in over a week? A paid janitorial staff could be recruited from the residents of these barracks communi�es. A Day Laborer pick-up site could be provided. City bus pick-up points could be established. There would s�ll be the problems of drug abuse and mental illness to deal with. A number of other issues would need to be addressed. However, they may be easier to deal with in the barracks environment than the tent ci�es. There would s�ll be a role for some �ny homes, such as for homeless married couples, especially those with children. Yet, the barracks approach would help deal with the large volume homeless men and women. Respec�ully, Robert C. Morash From: morashbob@netscape.net <morashbob@netscape.net> Sent: Saturday, December 9, 2023 5:48 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Shelter for Homeless Please see attached letter. From: Joanna Hayes <joanna.s.hayes@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 2:08 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Congregate shelter Hello, I read the proposal for a congregate shelter. At this point, I am frustrated. You and the mayor have received so much input and many excellent ideas. The council spent months over the summer debating the anti-camping legislation. The community has been telling you since July that a large congregate shelter will not meet the needs of this community. The Salvation Army shelter is rarely full, and many of our neighbors are still camping because that shelter does not meet their needs. A large congregate shelter will not be effective. People do not feel safe and secure despite the best efforts in this type of shelter. Humans need privacy and a place to call their own if they are to begin accessing resources. Safety is paramount in the recovery process, and congregate shelters rarely meet this need. I hope that, if this is the way that you go, you at least make it a 24-hour shelter with storage for residents' belongings and the ability to house pets safely and humanely. A walk-up congregate shelter is needed, but not one so large. The goal for a shelter such as this should be a brief stay until there is a slot into either permanent housing or long-term transitional housing such as a pallet shelter, a hotel room, or other similar options. It should be a short stop along the way to stable housing. It is not an adequate long-term option. On that note, why aren't we putting an effort into saving the Quality Inn shelter? KRM has over a 100- person waitlist, while the Salvation Army often has open beds. Removing all those beds and moving them to Port Orchard with an increase of approximately ten spaces is a horrible idea. Port Orchard generally does not feel local to people who do not have cars. That is far away. It also will only help a few additional people. It has been treated as though all of those beds are new beds, but that is not true. In making this decision, please consider listening to your neighbors, including unhoused people and those doing their best to help them despite limited resources. There are so many excellent options. Please consider this decision carefully. Joie Hayes Kitsap ERACE coalition housing systems team co-chair December 5, 2023 ER 408 Communication By Email Only Kylie J. Finnell, City Attorney 345 6th Street, Suite 100 Bremerton, WA 98337 Re: City’s Decision on Shelter Location Without SEPA Review Ms. Finnell: Our firm represents JSP Ambrose LLC (“JSP”), who owns and operates the 216-unit Ambrose apartment complex located at 4520 through 4562 Bay Vista Boulevard (the “Ambrose Apartments”). The beneficial owners of the Ambrose Apartments also own and manage hundreds of units of market, workforce, and affordable housing in Kitsap County, and tens of thousands of units across the western United States.1 We are writing to you on behalf of our client because of deep concerns with the process the City has used to site its new homeless shelter adjacent to Ambrose Apartments. To our understanding, the City has “decided” on a location that is known by parcel nos. 3748-001-005-0202 and/or 3748‐001‐007‐0200 (the “Site”).2 We would like to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these concerns, which are expressed more fully below, along with potential solutions. JSP is supportive of increasing housing options for low-income and vulnerable populations and has invested in many projects that do just this. However, the City’s process so far has been opaque, hurried, and seemingly without thorough consideration of the safety implications of siting a shelter in this location that is proximate to housing for many families and children. JSP’s offices are in downtown San Francisco, and so it has firsthand knowledge of the consequences if public safety issues are left unaddressed. We are also troubled that the City appears to have ignored the requirements of Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW (“SEPA”), in selecting the Site 1 These units include the Wellington and Cascade Ridge apartment complexes in Silverdale, and is undertaking construction of 570 additional apartment units in Kitsap County. 2 The “Phase 1” illustration on Slide 5 of the City’s October 11, 2023 presentation appears to contemplate all or part of the City’s project being sited on APN 3748‐001‐007‐0200. However, Slide 4 of the same presentation appears to suggest that the selected area will include both that parcel and 3748-001-005-0202. It is disappointing that the City’s public documents do not even make clear on which parcels the City’s proposed project will be located. However, this letter assumes that the City is planning to use both parcels as the Site. Kylie J. Finnell, City Attorney December 5, 2023 Page 2 of 7 without first completing environmental review. The City appears to be proceeding in a manner that not only violates SEPA, but will result in significant adverse environmental impacts. SEPA requires the City to adequately consider all such impacts as well as alternative locations for the shelter prior to proceeding any further with the proposal. A. The City has Violated and Continues to Violate SEPA As you know, SEPA requires all local governments to analyze potential environmental impacts of their decisions, except where a specific decision is expressly exempted by statute or rule. RCW 43.21C.030; WAC 197-11-305. Actions subject to SEPA review are defined to include any “decision on a specific project, such as a construction or management activity located in a defined geographic area,” including those projects sponsored by local governments, not just those sponsored by private applicants. WAC 197-11-704(2)(a). Further, and perhaps most importantly, such review “shall be integrated with agency activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek potential problems.” WAC 197-11-055(1). The law requires preparation of any “threshold determination and [EIS] at the earliest possible point in the decision-making progress, when the principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably identified.” Id. at (2). The City not only neglected to procedurally comply with SEPA when it “selected a site for development,” it is apparently now planning to also ignore SEPA on a continuing basis in December or January when “shelter type is selected.” See Site Development for Emergency Shelter presentation, City Council Study Session, Oct 11, 2023. The decision about where the proposed shelter should be located is one at which the proposal’s principal features and environmental impacts can certainly be identified, and that decision therefore required SEPA review. The City has publicly identified no applicable exemption from its obligations to undertake review prior to a siting decision, and therefore must return to the siting decision to review environmental impacts as required by law. Instead, the City appears to be proceeding on a path to determine all of the details of the proposal before it considers SEPA, which is at odds with the dictate that environmental review be completed as early as possible so that it can inform the decision-making process. SEPA also requires that the City consider alternative locations. RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii). This requirement obligates the City to consider other sites where the shelter’s services could be provided more effectively and with fewer environmental impacts. There is no legitimate reason why the City must limit itself to properties already in City ownership, especially when such sites are few and potentially environmentally problematic. Here, the City has selected a site with substantial trees, slopes, and sensitive neighbors. But with adequate review of alternatives, the City might identify alternative sites for lease or for sale where the shelter could be developed faster, more efficiently, less controversially and more sustainably. B. Locating the Shelter on the Site is Likely to Result in Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts Had the City undertaken legally required SEPA review as part of its siting decision, it would have observed a number of environmental issues with the site that indicate a high likelihood of significant adverse environmental impacts. The City has cited to a 2019 report that purports to Kylie J. Finnell, City Attorney December 5, 2023 Page 3 of 7 contain a “critical areas reconnaissance and preliminary hazardous materials review,” but the report is insufficient because it is outdated, not sufficiently detailed, and does include any analysis of one of the two parcels (Parcel 005-02) that the City has selected as part of the site. See Critical Areas Reconnaissance and Preliminary Hazardous Materials Review prepared by Struck Environmental, Inc., and dated Aug. 21, 2019 (the “2019 Report”) (analyzing only parcel no. 3748‐001‐007‐0200 and ignoring parcel no. 3748-001-005-0202.) Without an updated critical areas analysis in particular, the City is proceeding blind as to whether critical areas exist on the heavily wooded Site. The following environmental issues have similarly not been appropriately reviewed and must be considered before the shelter project is advanced any further:  Stormwater and Impacts on Estuarine and Marine Wetland Habitats. At present, the Site is apparently fully permeable. However, it is not clear whether the Site will be at all permeable in the finished condition with the shelter. By analyzing alternative sites, the City could have reviewed options where the shelter would not result in net loss of permeable surface coverage. Because the City did not perform such review, nonpoint source pollution of Oyster Bay (and harm to endangered Orcas and salmon) could increase unnecessarily. See 2019 Report at 3. (“Surface water runoff from the Property generally flows downgradient . . . to an outfall in Oyster Bay.”). See Appendix A, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Rendering of Estuarine and Marine Wetland Habitat Downhill from the Site.  Wetlands. The public record indicates that the “subject property includes a closed depression that could retain surface water during the wet season.” Id. at 4. However, City’s studies of this depression are more than four years out of date, so it is unclear how the City can still be confident that the selection of this Site will not result in harm to delicate wetland habitats or their protected buffers. The City is required to complete this analysis.  Native and Protected Trees and Vegetation. The Site is apparently densely vegetated, and contains municipal trees that may be protected by the City’s code. However, without SEPA review, it is not clear that the unvetted selection of this Site will cause the City to violate its obligations to select “a more appropriate site for replacement . . . when possible, in as close a proximity as spacing permits,” as required by BMC 13.10.080(c)(8); to comply with all applicable tree removal regulations set forth at BMC 20.14.190; and to preserve significant trees “to the greatest extent possible,” under BMC 20.50.050.d. See Appendix B, City Graphics of Vegetated Condition.  Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. The City has observed that all or part of the Site falls within a Category II Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, but has not analyzed whether the selection of a different location for the City’s project may have fewer adverse impacts on the aquifer than would creating additional impervious surface on the Site.  Slopes and Geotechnical Hazards. The record indicates that all or part of the Site contains steep slope areas designated under the City’s critical areas ordinance as “geologic areas of concern/potential erosion hazard.” The City has not addressed whether erosion hazards will be exacerbated by the shelter. Further, such conditions will almost certainly raise the costs of the City developing the project on this Site. With adequate SEPA review, the City could find a location on flatter ground, thereby focusing the City’s limited resources on providing the shelter instead of on the geotechnical study and engineering that this Site will require. Kylie J. Finnell, City Attorney December 5, 2023 Page 4 of 7 C. Conclusion Had the City opened the site selection process to the public as contemplated by SEPA, members of the public could have reminded City officials that the City need not restrict its search to sites currently owned by the City, where more grading and environmental impacts may be required. The City could lease, buy, or partner in providing a shelter site on a location that is already graded and impervious, would not require elimination of trees and vegetation, and better serves occupants and neighbors alike. Instead, if the City does not return to siting decision in order to make this decision in a manner compliant with SEPA, it is risking both significant adverse impacts to the environment and lawsuits from aggrieved families in the neighborhood. Beyond just the Ambrose Apartments, JSP develops and provides housing across multiple states, and is adept at project design, development and management. To assist the City in finding a solution to this issue, JSP may even be able to offer to purchase the Site from the City so that the City could fund acquisition or leasing of another, more suitable site for the shelter. At your earliest convenience, we request a meeting (via videoconference or in person) with you, Mayor Wheeler, and any other City staff that you may feel appropriate. We support the City’s goal of providing shelter to some of its most vulnerable citizens, but the City must also comply with its environmental obligations and consider public safety. We believe that a purchase of the property by JSP may provide a win-win solution that allows the City to adequately fund and efficiently construct a shelter in a location that has fewer environmental impacts and would be better for the City as a whole. Please process this letter as a written comment submitted during administrative review of the City’s Project and add JSP Ambrose LLC (care of this law firm) to your list of Parties of Record for this Project. Please also accept this correspondence as JSP Ambrose LLC’s formal request for an emailed (or USPS) copy of all public notices, decisions or environmental documents that may be prepared or issued in connection with the City’s Project.3 Very truly yours, Josh Friedmann Attorney for JSP Ambrose, LLC Josh.friedmann@hcmp.com (206) 470-7655 3 See, e.g., BMC 20.02.100(b)(8) and (c)(1)(v); 20.02.110(c)(1)(iii) and (f)(1)(iv)l 20.02.130(b)(1)(ii); 20.02.030(g); 20.04.160; WAC 197-11-355(2)(a)(iv) and (2)(d)(ii); WAC 197-11-510(1)(g); and WAC 197-11-680(5)(b)(i). Kylie J. Finnell, City Attorney December 5, 2023 Page 5 of 7 APPENDIX A Figure 1: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s rendering of Estuarine and Marine Wetland Habitat in Oyster Bay, immediately downgradient from the Site (marked with a small red circle) Kylie J. Finnell, City Attorney December 5, 2023 Page 6 of 7 APPENDIX B Figure 2: Depiction from the City’s Oct. 11, 2023 presentation, showing the Site as partially if not fully treed. Kylie J. Finnell, City Attorney December 5, 2023 Page 7 of 7 Figure 3: The City’s depiction of the Site’s “Typical upland property conditions,” as provided by the City’s 2019 Report. From: Dianna Loiacano <dancingwolf2003@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 6:04 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Homeless Encampment I am not sure who will get this but, however I am wondering why you are choosing to grant a permit of any sort and allowing a Warehouse to be built, that would only allow those who are homeless to stay the night and then they are forced to leave in the day. We are a first-time homeowner residing in the Bay Vista homes and like so many of my neighbors, we are trying very hard to wrap around our head's so many un-answered questions that the mayor was refusing to answer and refused to come to the meeting last night. We do understand that those who are homeless are in need during the cold. But then they will be pushed back out in the day. So much has been taken from these people who do reach out for help. We have always thought of our small-town as having the proper information that so many people who need it within our community could find. Not just throw the homeless aside like they are a pack of wolves. There are so many buildings being shut down, if not demolished that can be used for helping the homeless instead of building up apartments and condos. What happened to Bremerton and the compassion that was the reason for ships and good business? We do miss the old Bremerton. Please respond. Dianna Loiacano From: Jim short <jimshort@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 9:19 AM To: Anna Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Oyster bay homeless camp I urge you to try to get the council to reject mayor Wheelers proposal. Wheeler lied to us about the temporary nature and duration of moving the homeless into the motel on Kitsap way. We’ve all seen the zombies walking up and down the roadways including recently marine drive. Encouraging more is the same up by bay vista is beyond stupidity. “Build it and they will come “ is a saying about baseball. Not about homeless camps. The enterprising people who’ve pulled themselves up to enjoying decent housing are about to get totally screwed by mayor wheeler. Kitsap way is the visible entrance to our once nice city. Putting a homeless facility there is so wrong. Please get the council to put a stop to this outrage Thanks. Jim Short - marine drive 360 731 7012 Sent from my iPhone From: Lisa Levy <llevy@jspllc.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 2:23 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: 100 Oyster Bay Ave North - Proposed Shelter Bremerton City Council – I wanted to send an email before your study session this evening to highlight many of the Bay Vista Communi�es’ concerns with the loca�on of this proposed shelter. We hosted close to 60 community members last night to have an open discussion and in case it is helpful for your reference, this is a summary of several major concerns that residents and neighbors kept bringing up: • There were 11 potential sites identified for this shelter, why is this the best location? o If resources will not be provided at this location and most are located downtown, how will the unhoused population get to and from here? Public transit is very limited. Is this additional cost to expand public transit included in the proposed costs? o Where will they go everyday as this shelter will force them to leave every morning? To the playground across the street? To the streets not built out for this much foot traffic? o Ambrose apartments is located .9 miles away from the closest school. The bus picks up only for children 1+ mile away. Will the children of this neighborhood need to pass this shelter every day on their way to and from school? o + for the many vulnerable senior citizens living in the area, how will safety concerns be addressed? We have been told to form a Neighborhood Watch as the Police are unstaffed and cannot help us here • The company that builds these types of shelters has never done so in a residential neighborhood like Bay Vista • The Salvation Army is currently open thru Q1/Q2 of 2024 and are willing to stay open if they receive the funding. This site is already built out and has 75 available beds but has never been full. This site is arguably much easier to access and much closer to all existing local resources and aid. Why did the Salvation Army not receive additional funding? o If the 75-bed existing shelter is not at capacity, why is there a proposal to build a 200+ bed shelter in a location with potential environmental concerns? • Rock the Block has helped house 36+ individuals seeking assistance. They have requested additional funding and were denied. Why? • Between Rock the Block, the Bremerton Housing Authority and the Salvation Army – their level of expertise on housing the unhoused population is far superior, so the community and its leadership should be asking the professionals about where a project like this should be sited Thank you, Lisa Levy Asset Manager Jackson Square Proper�es 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 Office: 415-273-2161 Cell: 650-303-6442 From: Brittany Mellegard <bmellegard@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:00 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Community meeting 12/12 with Mayor Wheeler Greetings City Council, As you are aware, there is a proposal from Mayor Wheeler to build a sprung structure/homeless shelter in the Bay Vista neighborhood on Oyster Ave, which is currently slated to be voted on during the 12/20/23 city council meeting. I feel it is important to highlight that Mayor Wheeler and Chief of Police Tom Wolfe had an agreement with the Ambrose apartments to have a community meeting on 12/12 at 5pm and a Q&A to which neither showed up last night. It’s already quite insulting that the neighborhood was not involved or communicated with regarding this project, but then to not show up to a planned meeting to address everyone’s questions and concerns is not only discourteous but also extremely disrespectful to everyone’s time. Many people waited for well over an hour. As a neighborhood we already have concerns about this project, but then to be blatantly blown off by the mayor and the police chief only increases these concerns and further strains the relationship. We are frustrated by this incident and the lack of transparency from the mayor on this project overall. I added a picture of the flyer below documenting their agreement with the Ambrose apartments to hold a community meeting at 5 pm on 12/12. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Brittany Mellegard A resident of Bay Vista AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 Acceptance of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s 2024 Funding Recommendations COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: City Council Presenter: Denise Frey LTAC Chair Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC)) received fifteen (15) requests totaling $815,900. Also received was a request by the City of Bremerton for renewal of the City’s commitment of $250,000 (annually for 5-years) for operation of the Kitsap Conference Center. Direction provided by City Council for funding requests included support of long-time community events, kick-starting new events, tourism-based organizations and venues, and municipal projects. Also, criteria provided by the City Council when evaluating the requests included economic impact, events or activities to draw tourists from 50 miles or more away, events or activities that reflect Bremerton’s diversity, and requests that demonstrated collaboration with other community organizations. Following the application process, interviews with the applicants were held on November 13 and 14, followed by deliberations on November 28. The LTAC is now presenting for the Council’s consideration Funding Recommendations for all 15 of the applicants with a total proposed allocation of $355,000 (Exhibit A). Also to be included in the City’s 2024 Budget are continued annual commitments to the Kitsap Conference Center for $250,000 and the previously approved $150,000 for the Admiral Theatre, for a grand total of $755,000 for Fiscal Year 2024. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Exhibit A – LTAC Funding Recommendations for 2024 FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): RCW 67.28 specifies that the LTAC’s recommendations may either be accepted or rejected. If any individual recommendation is rejected by City Council, then the proposed change must be submitted to the LTAC for review and comment, allowing for up to 45 days before final action on the funding is taken. Funding may only be allocated to the list of eligible applicants provided by the LTAC. A delay in funding could potentially impact event planning in progress by organizations. STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s 2024 Funding Recommendations per Exhibit A. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/2018 A9 EXHIBIT A - Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 2024 Funding Recommendations Organization Proposed Event/Project Highlights Proposed Use of Funding Request Recommendation Collective Visions Gallery Juried Art Show, Concerts Tourism Promotion and Operations $15,000 $5,000 Expanding Events (Concerts, Workshops, Lectures) Puget Sound Navy Museum Website, Signage, Banner, Ads, Brochure Tourism Promotion and Operations $5,000 $5,000 WayzGoose Kitsap Social Media, Signage,Flyers, Brochures, Postcards Tourism Promotion and Operations $30,000 $7,500 West Sound Pickleball Blackberry Blast Pickleball Tournament Operations $24,000 $7,500 Bremerton Rotary Blackberry Festival Tourism Promotion and Operations $40,000 $10,000 Social Media, Video, Signage, Flyers City of Bremerton - Consultant Review economic/tourism impact of awards Operations $16,000 $10,500 Clarify goals of tourism initiatives Develop Recommendations Roxy Theatre Foundation Quincy Square Ground Breaking,Tourism Promotion and Operations $30,000 $12,500 West Sound Film Festival, New Year's Eve UNDA1SUN Roots, Rock & Reggae Concert Tourism Promotion and Operations $40,000 $15,000 *New Event* Kitsap History Museum History Uncorked, Eat Your Way Through Kitsap,Tourism Promotion and Operations $50,000 $20,000 First Fridays, Black History/Quincy Square Exhibit Downtown Bremerton Association St. Patrick's Day Parade, Rock the Dock,Tourism Promotion and Operations $43,000 $22,000 West Sound Film Fest, Zine Fest, Green Drinks, Trick or Treat Street WSSEF WA State Science and Engineering Fair Tourism Promotion $50,000 $30,000 Jr. Science and Humanities Symposium Science Film Festival International Space Station Event Sunny Jack Events Bridge Blast, Taste of Kitsap,Tourism Promotion and Operations $122,500 $40,000 Kitsap Wedding Expo, First Friday Night Markets Bremerton Historic Ships Association WA State Ferries, News, Magazine Tourism Promotion $50,000 $45,000 Visit Kitsap Peninsula Website, Social Media, Public Relations,Tourism Promotion and Operations $157,000 $55,000 Marketing, Downloadable Guides Greater Kitsap Chamber Armed Forces Day Festival and Parade Tourism Promotion and Operations $143,400 $70,000 Visitor Center Total Requests for Funding $815,900 Total Recommended Funding $355,000 Continued Funding to Kitsap Conference Center $250,000 Continued Funding to the Admiral Theatre $150,000 Total Continued Funding $400,000 Total 2024 Lodging Tax Funding $755,000 AGENDA BILL CITY OF BREMERTON CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Resolution to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism Study Session Date: December 13, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 20, 2023 Department: City Council Presenter: Jeff Coughlin Anna Mockler Phone: (360) 473-5280 SUMMARY: In order to better address antisemitism, the City Council wants to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism as an additional tool to recognize and respond to hate speech and crimes. The proposed resolution is similar to those that have been adopted by several cities and jurisdictions around Puget Sound, nationally, and internationally. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Proposed Resolution; and 2) IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism Booklet FISCAL IMPACTS (Include Budgeted Amount): STUDY SESSION AGENDA: ☒ Limited Presentation ☐ Full Presentation STUDY SESSION ACTION: ☐ Consent Agenda ☐ General Business ☐ Public Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No. to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism and to serve as a tool to identify and combat antisemitism. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Deny Table Continue No Action Form Updated 01/02/18 A10 Updated Page 1 of 2 Adopt IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism for the City of Bremerton, to serve as a tool to identify and combat antisemitism. WHEREAS, the City of Bremerton is one of the most diverse in Kitsap County and Washington State, and our Jewish residents are an important part of the city’s fabric, with members at Congregation Beth Hatikvah contributing in many ways to the community, and; WHEREAS, hate and bias are not acceptable in our community, and the City Council remains committed to our vision of welcoming the world and recognizing diversity as a key strength for the city and our character, and; WHEREAS, numerous local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies have reported an extreme and alarming rise in antisemitic hate crimes and violence, and; WHEREAS, Bremerton residents are encouraged to report any potential hate crimes to Bremerton police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and; WHEREAS, at the October 18th, 2023, City Council Meeting, white supremacists spewed antisemitic hate speech during Public Recognition targeted at our Jewish community, and; WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) members adopted the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism: “A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non -Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”, and; WHEREAS, the City Council supports the May 26, 2016, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which helps protect all people in Bremerton from acts of hate and bigotry, and; WHEREAS, the IHRA working definition has proven to be an essential tool for government and law enforcement agencies as they work to identify contemporary manifestations of antisemitism, and both respond directly to it and provide training and education about it; NOW THEREFORE, Page 2 of 2 Adopt IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in full for the City of Bremerton, including the examples provided by the IHRA, to serve as a tool to identify and combat antisemitism in Bremerton. SECTION 2. The City Council condemns all forms of antisemitism, both in word and in deed, as defined by the IHRA working definition and its provided examples, as supporters and allies of our Jewish community. SECTION 3. The City Council strongly stands against hate, bias, and violence based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and/or disability, and urges all residents to come together and support our Jewish neighbors. SECTION 4. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Resolution are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Bremerton, Washington this _____ day of __________________, 2023. JEFF COUGHLIN, Council President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: KYLIE J. FINNELL, City Attorney ANGELA HOOVER, City Clerk THE WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM What Does It Mean, Why Is It Important, and What Should We Do With It? THE WORKING DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM What Does It Mean, Why Is It Important, and What Should We Do With It? 2 ver two decades ago, beginning in 2001 and 2002, we witnessed a surge in antisemitic incidents in Western Europe, with attacks on Jewish targets including schools O and synagogues. Governments were slow to recognize them, let alone respond to them. They were frequently dismissed as reactions to the Middle East conflict, as though anger toward Israel somehow explained harassing Jewish worshipers or threatening Jewish schoolchildren. Traditional forms of antisemitism such as claims of Jewish control of the economy or the media, world conspiracies such as those described in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and medieval charges of blood libel may have been better understood. But, as the OSCE Berlin Declaration stated in 2004, antisemitism had taken on “new forms and manifestations.” In response, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) conducted its first study of antisemitism in the European Union in 2004. In direct interviews with Jewish community leaders, it found a high degree of anxiety and concern. But its national monitors discovered that the available data was quite limited, and most of them did not even have a definition of antisemitism to guide their analysis. American Jewish Committee (AJC) and other experts in the Jewish community stepped in. Working closely with the leadership of the EUMC, they drafted a comprehensive definition of antisemitism, including clear examples of the various forms it could take. This included traditional tropes, the growing problem of Holocaust denial, and the new forms that related to Israel, such as demonizing the Jewish State or holding local Jewish communities responsible for its actions. It was issued in early 2005, by the EUMC as a “working definition” to help government and civil society monitors as well as law enforcement in their work. It was quickly employed by the U.S. State Department to frame its international reports on antisemitism and was incorporated into training materials for police cadets in the United Kingdom. 3 THE IHRA WORKING DEFINITION In 2009, the EUMC was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) with a broader and different mandate. FRA later determined that it would not provide a definition of any form of prejudice or intolerance, including antisemitism, which instead should be left to the individual victim group to describe. Elements of the Working Definition helped shape FRA’s important surveys of Jewish experiences and perceptions of antisemitism, but it now lacked an official home. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an organization of 31 nations at the time, including most of Europe as well as Israel and the United States, stepped in. With its focus on Holocaust education, it had already addressed the problem of Holocaust denial, and it was determined to find the tools to fight antisemitism. In 2016, under the leadership of Romania, IHRA formally adopted The Working Definition of Antisemitism, a slightly-edited version of the original EUMC document. Thus, we speak today of the IHRA Working Definition. ANTISEMITISM AS IT RELATES TO ISRAEL The most useful—and for some the most controversial—of the examples provided in the definition are those related to the State of Israel. They are intended to explain where and how anti-Israel animus can become a form of antisemitism, separate and apart from criticism of Israel. These include drawing analogies to the Nazis, declaring Israel a racist—and thus illegitimate—endeavor, holding it to standards expected of no other democratic state, and holding Jews collectively responsible for its actions. These examples are reflected in the 2018 FRA survey and track what the vast majority of European Jews themselves consider antisemitic.1 Some critics of Israel have unfairly claimed that the Working Definition is intended to label them as antisemites. In fact, its careful wording leaves a wide berth for sharp and vigorous criticism of Israel’s government and policies. It is a “non-legally binding” definition intended to guide and educate. It is not a means to squelch debate or free speech, and those who misuse it in this way should be opposed. 1. Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism/Second survey on discrimination and hate crimes against Jews in the EU.” European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018. 4 EMPLOYING THE WORKING DEFINITION The Working Definition of Antisemitism is being utilized by various government and non-government agencies to train police, prosecutors, and judges and to inform civil society monitors and educators. TRAINING AND EDUCATION • AJC uses the IHRA Working Definition in its training on understanding antisemitism for entertainment companies and corporations. • The European Commission published a handbook2 for the practical use of the IHRA Working Definition, which provides practical applications of the definition. • The United Kingdom College of Policing uses the Working Definition in its Hate Crime Operational Guidance for police training. • The German Foreign Office has issued a directive for all its staff to confront antisemitism based on the IHRA Working Definition. In Germany, it is also included in handouts of the Police Reporting Service. • RIAS Berlin uses the Working Definition to train judiciary officials on how to identify antisemitism. • The NGO CEJI-A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe holds an annual training for EU officials on antisemitism using the Working Definition. • The Mauthausen Memorial in Austria (at the site of the former concentration camp) utilizes the Working Definition in its police training. • In Poland, the government disseminated it among universities and sports associations. • The United Kingdom Judicial College included the Working Definition in its 2018 guidance to judges. • It is used by Finland in the training of its national police. • The Estonian Academy for Security Sciences added the Working Definition to its curriculum. • In Serbia, the IHRA Working Definition is used by the Office for Human and Minority Rights to educate its staff and the public. DATA COLLECTION • Several NGOs in EU member states utilize the Working Definition in recording data on antisemitism hate crimes, including the UK’s Community Security Trust and Austria’s Forum Against Antisemitism. 2. ““Handbook for the practical use of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.” Publications Office of the European Union. Published 07 January 2021. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ d3006107-519b-11eb-b59f-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 5 • The OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights’ (ODIHR) practical guide on Understanding Antisemitic Hate Crimes and Addressing the Security Needs of Jewish Communities includes the IHRA Working Definition as a resource for its 57 participating States and recommends that governments collect sound data on antisemitism to develop evidence-based responses to counter it. ENDORSEMENT OF THE WORKING DEFINITION Since 2016, the IHRA Working Definition has been recommended and endorsed by a growing number of international and regional organizations and their leaders. These include the Chairperson-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, the United Nations Secretary General and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Vice President of the European Commission, among others. In March 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the Biden Administration, “enthusiastically embraces” the IHRA Working Definition. THE WORKING DEFINITION ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES Colleges and universities around the world have endorsed or adopted the IHRA Working Definition to denounce antisemitism and protect Jewish students from bias. Dozens of universities in the United States have passed resolutions condemning antisemitism and adopting language from the IHRA Working Definition since 2015.3 Universities across the United Kingdom have adopted the IHRA Working Definition, including the vast majority of Russell Group institutions such as University of Cambridge and Oxford University. UK Education Minister Gavin Williamson announced in October 2020 that universities that failed to adopt the IHRA Working Definition could be subject to “robust actions” including suspended funding. The 84 member universities of the German 3. “U.S. CAMPUS ADOPTION OF THE WORKING DEFINITION.” AJC.org. https://www.ajc.org/us-campus- adoption-of-the-working-definition Rectors’ Conference (HRK) “emphatically welcomed” the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism in a resolution of the 27th General Meeting of the HRK in November 2019. On March 1, 2021, the Global Student Forum (GSF), representing 183 student associations from 118 countries, passed a motion to combat antisemitism, which included adoption of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. USE OF THE WORKING DEFINITION IN THE U.S. By an act of Congress in 2004, the U.S. Department of State is obligated to monitor and combat antisemitism internationally and appoint a Special Envoy (recently elevated to Ambassador at Large) to oversee this work. When evaluating the problem, the Department makes use of the IHRA Working Definition. Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Education has used the IHRA Working Definition when assessing the problem of antisemitism on college campuses. A Presidential Executive Order of 2019, mandated the U.S. Department of Education and other Federal Agencies that have a responsibility to address the problem of antisemitism to employ the IHRA Working Definition in these efforts. Over half of all U.S. states and dozens of local municipalities have passed resolutions adopting the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. ADOPTION OF THE WORKING DEFINITION The following countries have adopted the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (as of July 2023): • Albania (parliamentary resolution in October 2020) • Argentina (Government decision in June 2020) • Australia (Government decision in October 2021) • Austria (Government decision in April 2017) • Belgium (Senate resolution in December 2018) • Bosnia (Government decision in July 2022) • Bulgaria (Government decision in October 2017) • Canada (Government decision in June 2019) • Colombia (Government decision in June 2022) • Croatia (parliamentary resolution in January 2023) • Cyprus (Government decision in December 2019) • Czech Republic (parliamentary resolution in January 2019) 6 7 • Estonia (Government decision in April 2021) • Finland (Government decision in February 2022) • France (parliamentary resolution in December 2019) • Germany (Government decision in September 2017) • Greece (Government decision in November 2019) • Guatemala (parliamentary resolution in January 2021) • Hungary (Government decision in February 2019) • Israel (Government decision in January 2017) • Italy (Government decision in January 2020) • Kosovo (Government decision in September 2020) • Latvia (Government decision in April 2023) • Lithuania (Government decision in January 2018) • Luxembourg (parliamentary resolution In July 2019) • Moldova (Government decision in January 2019) • The Netherlands (parliamentary resolution in November 2018) • North Macedonia (parliamentary resolution in March 2018) • Panama (Government decision in July 2023) • Philippines (Government decision in February 2022) • Poland (Government decision in October 2021) • Portugal (Government decision in July 2021) • Romania (Government decision in May 2017) • Serbia (Government decision in February 2020) • Slovakia (parliamentary resolution in December 2018) • Slovenia (Government decision in December 2018) • South Korea (Government decision in August 2021) • Spain (Government decision in July 2020) • Sweden (Government decision in January 2020) • Switzerland (Government decision in June 2021) • United Kingdom (Government decision in December 2016) • United States (Executive order in December 2019) • Uruguay (Government decision in January 2020) In addition to governments and multi-governmental organizations, others who have adopted the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism include: • Professional Sports Organizations, including The Premier League, the world’s most-watched sports league • Corporations, including Daimler, Deutsche Bahn, Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen, and Borussia Dortmund • The Media, such as the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA) 8 THE FULL TEXT OF THE IHRA WORKING DEFINITION: On 26 May 2016, the IHRA Plenary decided to adopt the following non- legally binding working definition of Antisemitism: To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property—such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries—are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries. AJC’s mission is to enhance the well-being of the Jewish people and Israel, and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United States and around the world. AJC.org /AJCGlobal @AJCGlobal @ AJC.Global Published for December 13 Study Session ITEM A10 – Public Comments From: Anna Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 11:37 AM To: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jennifer Chamberlin <Jennifer.Chamberlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Resolution Re Anti-Semitism So this looks ok to me with one suggested change to Section 3 in the Resolution -- remove the highlighted final clause. Then we have a resolution condemning ALL hate speech and actions. We could also replace this clause with "and urges all of us to call out and stand against hate-filled words and deeds". I also suggest that we emphasize that, no matter what the US Congress thinks, we stand with the many Jewish reps who urged their colleagues NOT to pass a resolution calling anti-Zionism the same thing as anti-semitism. Because they are not the same thing. Page 3 of the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism states that the definition's "careful wording leaves a wide berth for sharp and vigorous criticism of Israel’s government and policies." Yours, Anna SECTION 3. The City Council strongly stands against hate, bias, and violence based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and/or disability, and urges all residents to come together and support our Jewish neighbors. Anna Mockler Bremerton City Councilor, District Six Chair, Public Works and Audit Committees From: Jennifer Chamberlin <Jennifer.Chamberlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 11:48 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Hate speech Here is a great article from MRSC regarding how to address hate speech. For consideration is the council resolutions denouncing hate speech that have passed in King County, Port Angeles, and Kenmore. Let’s please add those items for consideration. The links are embedded at the end of the article. Thank you. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/november-2023/addressing-hate-speech-at-meetings Jennifer Chamberlin Bremerton City Council Vice President District 1 When Hate Comes to Town: Addressing Racist and Anti-Semitic Public Comment at Meetings November 6, 2023 by Oskar Rey Category: Inclusive Communities, Legislative Body, Public Participation In recent months, there has been a disturbing trend in which the public comment period of city council meetings has been used to make antisemitic and racist statements. The comments are typically made by individuals appearing remotely over Zoom who sign up for public comment under assumed names and do not appear on camera. In some cases, it appears the same individual signs up multiple times under different names so that they have additional opportunities to comment. This is not an isolated phenomenon. It is occurring in multiple states, including numerous cities in California (San Diego and San Francisco for example), Eugene, Oregon, and Iowa City, Iowa, to name a few. In recent weeks, this disturbing trend has reached several cities in Washington State. This blog will look at measures Washington local governments can take to minimize the chance that their public meetings are disrupted by hate speech. Public Comment is a Limited Public Forum Under the First Amendment When local governments provide an opportunity for public comment at meetings, it is considered a “limited public forum” for free speech purposes. That means the government can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech, provided the regulations are reasonable and content-neutral. For example, some local governments require public comment to be on a matter of agency concern or an item on the meeting agenda. Such a requirement prevents a speaker from commenting on matters that are not relevant to the agency. Public comment rules should be clear and easy to interpret. In Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2013) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a rule that prohibited “insolent” action or speech because it was overbroad. The court found the policy swept “a substantial amount of non-disruptive, protected speech within its prohibiting language.” For more on free speech and public comment rules, see the MRSC’s blog, When First Amendment Rights and Public Meetings Clash. Until fairly recently, Washington local government agencies were not required to allow public comment at meetings of the governing body, although many did so voluntarily. That changed in 2022, when the legislature amended the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) to require governing bodies to provide oral or written public comment at regular meetings. RCW 42.30.240(2) also contains the following requirement: Upon the request of any individual who will have difficulty attending a meeting of the governing body of a public agency by reason of disability, limited mobility, or for any other reason that makes physical attendance at a meeting difficult, the governing body shall, when feasible, provide an opportunity for that individual to provide oral comment at the meeting remotely if oral comment from other members of the public will be accepted at the meeting. Options for Addressing Hate Speech Although the First Amendment and the OPMA place some limitations on local governments, deciding how best to proceed is a policy choice. Public comment plays an important role in allowing constituents to communicate with their elected officials. On the other hand, hate speech causes harm, and it seems antithetical to the role of local government to allow public meetings to be co-opted by messengers of hate. Governing bodies need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of restricting public comment for the purpose of minimizing hate speech. Option 1: Eliminate remote public comment One option that some cities in other states are pursuing is eliminating remote public comments. Services such as Zoom have made public participation easier, but such tools can be abused by individuals operating anonymously who may be in far-away places. If it is not possible to verify a speaker’s true identity and place of residence, then some local governments may decide that remote public comment is not worth it. Washington local governments will need to comply with RCW 42.30.240(2), which allows an individual for whom physical attendance is difficult to request remote public comment. It would seem a local government could request information necessary to verify the identity of an individual making such a request. Option 2: Limit public comment to items on the agenda Another option is requiring that the comments be relevant to an item on the agenda. That requirement provides the presiding officer with the ability to quickly mute or disconnect a speaker that is not speaking to a matter of city concern. Limiting speakers to topics that are relevant to the agenda or the business of the agency is likely not a content-based regulation. The agency is facilitating communication on topics of interest to the city rather than discriminating against viewpoints that may be expressed on those topics. However, it appears that some speakers engaging in hate speech have referred to agenda items at the beginning of their comments. This puts the presiding officer and governing body in the difficult position of deciding the point at which a speaker’s comments are no longer relevant to agency business. Here are sample policies that limit public comment to items on the meeting agenda: • Seattle City Council Rules of Procedure, Rule XI.D; Comment must be relevant to item on agenda and comments on other matters are “disruptive.” • Tacoma City Council Rules of Procedure, Rule 9; In general, public comment is limited to items on the agenda, and item must be specified in advance. Option 3: Take steps to verify the identity of speakers commenting remotely Taking steps to verify the identity of remote public commenters may be an option if technologically feasible. Agencies considering this type of measure should consult with their information technology experts to determine what options may be available. Keep in mind that verification of identity should only apply to individuals who wish to speak remotely during public comment: Under RCW 42.30.040, a local government may not require a person to identify themselves when they are simply attending a public meeting. Why Not Prohibit Hate Speech? It may be tempting to simply prohibit the use of hate speech during the public comment period, but there are a few reasons why this is inadvisable. First, a court would likely view a prohibition on hate speech as a content-based restriction. One of the bedrock principles of free speech is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself to be offensive. There is not an exception for hate speech under the First Amendment. Second, hate speech is a difficult concept to define for the purpose of enforcing public comment rules. The problem rests not with the egregious examples of hate speech, but in those areas where there may room for disagreement. Asking a presiding officer and governing body to determine whether a speaker has used hate speech during the public comment portion of a meeting is a fraught undertaking with potential liability to the agency for violation of free speech rights. Conclusion — Be Prepared! Now is a good time to review public comment policies and determine whether changes are necessary. A local government should also discuss and plan how best to respond if hate speech is used during public comment. The presiding officer needs to be comfortable with both the rules and the technology platform and should understand when it is appropriate to turn off the microphone of those violating the policy. In addition, any policy that allows a speaker to be cut off should apply equally to in-person and remote speakers. King County, Kenmore, and Port Angeles (among others) have issued statements condemning hate speech at public meetings and affirming their commitment to inclusivity, understanding, and respect for one another. The sad truth is that local governments may not be able to guarantee that hate speech will not occur during public comment, but there are measures that can be taken to make it less easy to espouse hate. MRSC is a private nonprofit organization serving local governments in Washington State. Eligible government agencies in Washington State may use our free, one-on-one Ask MRSC service to get answers to legal, policy, or financial questions. From: Dee Axelrod <deeaxelrod@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 11:32 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: pending resolution Bremerton City Council Members; As a person of Jewish descent and a long-time resident of Kitsap County, I’m writing to express concern. I understand that you have before you a resolution condemning antisemitic hate speech modeled on similar resolutions passed in other Washington cities. But those resolutions were passed in 2022 – before the current war in Gaza. The context has, therefore, markedly changed, and the meaning of such a resolution has changed, also. Now, to extend that protection only to people of Jewish descent is to pointedly withhold it from the other. That absence becomes as palpable as the inclusion of Jews under the protective umbrella of the resolution. Arguably more so. I am a Jew, but even if I were not, I would deplore the antisemitism that disrupted your council meeting. Even if I were not a Jew, I would deplore it. In the same spirit, I denounce islamophobia. Nor must the targets of that hate make their case to deserve protection. In fact, all imperilled groups, all minorities deserve the same protections. Don’t they? Respectfully, Dee Axelrod From: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:49 PM To: Jo Walter <msjowalter@gmail.com> Cc: Brenda Calderon <brendacal10@gmail.com>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: Hate speech Hi Ms. Walter, The primary focus of the resolution is to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's 2016 working definition of antisemitism — similar resolutions have been adopted by many cities and other jurisdictions around Washington (e.g., Bellevue, Tacoma, Mill Creek, Port of Seattle, Snohomish County) over the past several years. The item is A10 at the Study Session this week, and you can find the full text of the proposed resolution starting on page 610 of the council packet: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet Direct link to Packet PDF: https://meetings.municode.com/d/f?u=https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.ne t/brem-pubu/MEET-Packet-5880c94195ac4008bcf4847cc4c3f301.pdf&n=AgendaPacket- Study%20Session-December%2013,%202023%205.00%20PM.pdf Sincerely, This e-mail and further communication may be subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). From: Jo Walter <msjowalter@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:14 PM To: Jennifer Chamberlin <Jennifer.Chamberlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Anna Mockler <Anna.Mockler@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Denise Frey <Denise.Frey@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Michael Goodnow <Michael.Goodnow@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski <Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Eric Younger <eric.younger@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Brenda Calderon <brendacal10@gmail.com> Subject: Hate speech Hello Council Members, I am very concerned about President Coughlin's intention to discuss a resolution condemning anti-Semitism at the next study session for potential adoption at the following council meeting. I understand the need to take action against the national campaign to flood public meetings with hateful comments referencing false Jewish religious beliefs. You have done that with strong words and the action of changing the rules for public comment. I think to do more is to stir people up unnecessarily, and will serve no other useful purpose. The Council's 2019 Resolution 3316 "affirming the City' s commitment to the principles of equity and inclusion" seems to clearly express our commitment to "implement practices that seek to improve opportunities and quality of life for all residents, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, country of origin, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious beliefs." If you feel moved to respond to the call by some community members to make a formal resolution in response to the hate speech incidents, it would be appropriate to reiterate that we oppose all forms of hate speech. If you feel it is important to call out hate speech which is on the rise right now, it is important to include both anti- Semitic speech and Islamophobic speech. I fully understand that it is not the business of local city councils to take political action regarding national and international matters. And we did experience multiple instances of anti- Jewish hate speech at City Council meetings, so that makes it a local issue. However, while we are experiencing a crisis in Gaza and Israel, and many Americans (including Bremertonians) are victims of hurtful and threatening hate speech, we risk causing harm to some community members by not including all vulnerable Bremertonians in a reaffirmation of our "commitment to the principles of equity and inclusion". A council member has indicated that if another group would like a resolution, they should do their "homework" in the same way as those who are requesting the resolution being proposed. I've done some homework, and discovered this statement from Washington State House Speaker Jinkins that may serve our own community. https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/jinkins/2023/10/24/statement-from-speaker-laurie- jinkins-d-tacoma-on-hate-crime-protections-for-jewish-muslim-islamic-and-refugee- communities/ Thank you, Jo Walter From: this is nadine <nadinehammad@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 9:39 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Regarding a message condemning hate- To Bremerton City Council Members- I am here as a resident of Poulsbo & Kitsap County to speak on how a national and international issue can be and should be addressed locally. It has come to my attention that we are seeing a rise of hateful speech and due to current events I am concerned it will not be addressed as a whole. We are a country- a community of immigrants from all over the world. We are on stolen land & we acknowledge this respectfully. What an absolute treasure trove of culture, perspective and community connection we miss out on when we fail to see and support ALL our residents. Diversity is an opportunity not a statement. This is our opportunity to help amplify growing voices for peace and justice around the state. There is so much to learn & there are many community resources already available to assist. Acknowledge that violence is on the rise against our Jewish, Muslim and Arab friends. Only condemning one type of this hate, especially now, is not the way to set an example for our neighbors. Call on community members to educate themselves and offer support as they should always be doing. Anyone spreading hate fueled messaging is either deranged or seriously misinformed, oftentimes both. Call it what it is. A city can condemn speech but it cannot control speech any more than it should control the beliefs of its residents. A city can let the people know when personal responsibility is needed- acknowledge the rising tension, especially against certain groups. Recommend we reach out and have conversations with each other. Protect free & accessible third spaces, libraries and community centers to help facilitate this. Encourage interfaith resources for community togetherness. Everyone is deserving of support when they come in good faith. So please condemn dehumanizing messaging of all kinds. Groups of all kinds are welcome and free speech is protected here. We need to show people who spread hateful speech and ignorance that their words will only bring us closer as a community. Thank you! -Nadine Hammad From: Susan Griggs <susangriggs@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:18 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Support of Statement Against Hate Speech Dear Bremerton City Council, I understand that there was some an�-semi�c speech on zoom at one of your recent City Council mee�ngs. I applaud you for responding to that concern and indica�ng that public comment will now need to be solely in person. I would like the City Council to consider approving a resolu�on denouncing any hate speech, and the Council’s right to turn off the mike of anyone who starts to spew hate speech at a City Council mee�ng. All hate speech should be outlawed, and not just some hate speech. If you outlaw some specific type of hate speech, it is very possible that you will have to change it to outlaw other hate speech. At this �me, I understand the number of hate crimes has increased dras�cally. These hate crimes have been targeted primarily two communi�es - the Jewish community and the Moslem community. When hate speech is tolerated, it increases the probability that hate crimes will be perpetrated in that same community. I know that the City Council would be very upset if that happened in Bremerton because the Council outlawed an�-semi�c speech without outlawing Islamaphobic speech. I have confidence that the resolu�on that the Council will put forth will be against hate speech, and not just against an�- semi�c speech, as I know the Council would not do anything to cause harm to the Moslem community. As it is now, the Moslem community has been exposed to a great deal of discrimina�on, but believe that drawing aten�on to this will only cause them more discriminatory ac�ons. Thank you for your aten�on to this mater. Sincerely, Rev. Susan Griggs Seabold United Methodist Church From: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 2:52 PM To: Susan Griggs <susangriggs@icloud.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: Public Comments - Support of Statement Against Hate Speech (Rev. Susan Griggs) Hi Rev. Griggs, Thanks for writing in on this issue, and for standing against hate speech. I want to clarify that the Council for the time being is not allowing remote (Zoom) comments for Public Recognition (open-ended comment on any topic), but is still allowing remote comments for Public Comment (specific agenda items). This is because we can stop somebody from speaking on specific agenda items if they are not actually speaking to the item under consideration. But for public recognition, since it is essentially open ended, we cannot except for extremely specific circumstances. There is no proposal to outlaw any type of hate speech, because we cannot legally do so. We must abide by the Washington Open Public Meetings Act and the First Amendment. This article from the Municipal Research Services Organization explains the legal requirements we must follow when taking public input and options available to us: https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/november-2023/addressing-hate-speech-at- meetings The resolution for discussion at tonight's meeting is to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism. It would not outlaw or prohibit antisemitic or any other hate speech, but serve as a tool for identifying and responding to such speech. The item is A10 at the Study Session this week, and you can find the full text of the proposed resolution in the council packet: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet Direct link to Packet PDF: https://meetings.municode.com/d/f?u=https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.ne t/brem-pubu/MEET-Packet-5880c94195ac4008bcf4847cc4c3f301.pdf&n=AgendaPacket- Study%20Session-December%2013,%202023%205.00%20PM.pdf Cheers, This e-mail and further communication may be subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56 From: WebMaster <WebMaster@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 9:55 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Comment Form FYI From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2023 7:12 PM To: WebMaster <WebMaster@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Subject: Online Form Submittal: Comment Form Comment Form Comments Dear members of Bremerton City Council, I hope you are well. I’m writing to share my deep disquiet over the anti-Semitic comments at the recent City Council meeting, and to express my support for taking action. Changing the rules on commenting, which I hear you have done, makes a lot of sense to me. If you plan to take a pubic stand against antisemitism, however, I want to urge you to also condemn other forms of hate – specifically Islamophobia. It is important that our community stand for defending the safety and rights of all of our families and religious communities. Because Jews and Muslims are being singled out right now – especially since Oct. 6 – I urge you to be inclusive should you decide to take a stand on this matter. I’d also caution you against any statement that could equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. As someone of Jewish dissent, it is extremely important to me that we make a distinction. Happy to discuss if you’d like. Sincerely, Sarah van Gelder Email Address sarahvangelder1@gmail.com Other Contact Information 3602866071 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From: sheelan Abdullah <sheelan16@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 4:07 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Anti-Semitism/Islamophobia Dear Bremerton City Council Members, My name is Sheelan Abdullah. I am a member of the Islamic Center of Kitsap County. I am a Muslim American resident of Bremerton, WA. I am writing to you on behalf of the Bremerton Muslim community today to encourage the Bremerton City Council Members to please consider including condemning Islamophobia alongside the anti-Semitism resolution. Bremerton should be a place that values and uplifts diversity, equity, and inclusion of all its community members, including the Jewish, Muslim, & Arab community members. All communities are interconnected, and all should feel protected and supported equally by the Council. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has mentioned the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia as the Israel-Hamas war continues to unfold. This conflict, although so far away yet so close to home, has brought a great deal of unrest, uncertainty, fear, and harm towards Jewish and Muslim communities. It is imperative that the Council includes Islamophobia alongside anti-Semitism in the resolution. It is hard for Muslim communities to show up in political/government spaces and speak up because of the strain Islamophobia has put on the Muslim community. Muslim communities don't have the privilege and safety of speaking up. When Muslims do speak, we are seen as terrorists and danger to society. It is crucial the Council shows equal support to both the Jewish and Muslim community by condemning anti-Semitism and Islamophobia simultaneously. With peace and solidarity, Sheelan Abdullah ICKC member From: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:18 AM To: sheelan Abdullah <sheelan16@yahoo.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: Anti-Semitism/Islamophobia Hi Sheelan Abhullah, Thanks so much for writing in on this subject. I want to clarify that the resolution's primary focus is to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's 2016 working definition of Antisemitism — similar resolutions have been adopted by many cities and other jurisdictions around Washington (e.g., Bellevue, Tacoma, Mill Creek, Port of Seattle, Snohomish County) over the past several years — at the request of leaders in our local Jewish community. The item is A10 at the Study Session this week, and you can find the full text of the proposed resolution starting on page 641 of the council packet: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet Direct link to Packet PDF: https://meetings.municode.com/d/f?u=https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.ne t/brem-pubu/MEET-Packet-5880c94195ac4008bcf4847cc4c3f301.pdf&n=AgendaPacket- Study%20Session-December%2013,%202023%205.00%20PM.pdf If there is a analogous working definition of Islamophobia by an analogous group, I would personally be so happy to work with you and others in drafting a similar resolution. Please know that you and and other members of ICKC, the Muslim and Arab communities, are most welcomed by the Council at Council meetings, and we stand against all forms of hate, bias, and violence based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and/or disability. Sincerely, This e-mail and further communication may be subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). From: Promise Partner <promisewpartner@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 11:02 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: antisemitism resolution Dear City Councilors, I was dismayed to hear about the vile antisemitic comments via Zoom at recent City Council meetings. Thank you for your change to public comment rules in response. I hope that you continue to consider how you can prevent hate speech while respecting free speech. It is your responsibility, as meeting convenors, to interrupt oppressive comments and mitigate harm to oppressed groups. At today’s study session, you will be considering a resolution about antisemitism. While you have good intent, I caution you to think about the impact of this resolution - particularly given the current context in Israel and Palestine and the rise in both antisemitism and Islamophobia. While you seek to protect our Jewish neighbors, the proposed resolution will further isolate our Muslim neighbors, who are also facing rising hate speech, harm, and violence. In addition, I caution you against adopting anything that conflates antisemitism – discrimination, targeting, violence, and dehumanizing stereotypes directed at Jews because they are Jewish – with anti-Zionism, which opposes the political ideology of Zionism. It is very important that we make a clear distinction between these two. If you want to make a public statement, I ask you to reaffirm the Council's 2019 Resolution 3316 "affirming the City's commitment to the principles of equity and inclusion" and committing to "implement practices that seek to improve opportunities and quality of life for all residents, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, country of origin, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious beliefs." We are seeing on the global stage that the freedom and safety of Israelis is intertwined with the freedom and safety of Palestinians and this is true of groups of people here in our home of Bremerton, too. Please affirm that you stand for an inclusive and safe environment for all, instead of singling out one marginalized group over another. That action would be a glaring omission and would not make our community safer or more welcoming. Thank you, Promise Partner 133 N Cambrian Ave (District 5) Bremerton, Washington Community organizer and participant in Kitsap SURJ (Showing Up for Racial Justice), Kitsap ERACE Coalition (Equity, Race, and Community Engagement), and KAIRE (Kitsap Advocating for Immigrant Rights and Equality) From: Rachael Reese <rachaelmreese@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 10:01 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: possible BCC resolution condemning anti-Semitism Dear Bremerton Council Members, Thank you for your work in our City. What you do here has rippling effects throughout Kitsap County and impacts all of our residents and city workers. It has come to our attention that you are going to discuss passing a resolution condemning anti- Semitism. I know that this stems from the recent anti-Semitic violent remarks made at the last BCC meeting and the devastating violence on Oct.7 by Hamas. With the daily unfathomable amount of Palestinians lives lost due to indiscriminate bombing by the Israeli government, there has been a national rise in Islamophobic racism and anti-Semitism. I stand in solidarity with many residents to urge you to take a public stand against anti-Semitism AND Islamophobia. We want you, as entrusted City Leaders, to condemn all forms of hate – specifically Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. It is important that our community stand for defending the safety and rights of all of our families and religious communities but we must specifically uplift our Jewish and Muslim community members as they are BOTH being targeted right now. This is deeply connected to when we state Black Lives Matter. When our most marginalized and historically oppressed community members are experiencing daily violence, we as a community must stand in solidarity with them. We are all connected. When the most marginalized are supported, we all are positively impacted. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of our shared concerns. Sincerely, -- Rachael Reese she/her/hers Solidarity is a verb- Slow Factory From: Alison Loris <asloris@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 10:04 PM To: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski <Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: council resolution re antisemitism Okay, I have read the draft resolution, and while I do not see exactly what it can accomplish, or is meant to accomplish, I do see clearly that despite the nod to other targets of hate in Section 3, the focus is still exclusively on supporting "our Jewish neighbors." The City Council strongly stands against hate, bias, and violence based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and/or disability, and urges all residents to come together and support our Jewish neighbors. I have to ask, again, what about our Islamic, our Palestinian-American neighbors? What about the Native American women, and the Latinx transgender women who are being murdered in record numbers in the last few years? Why does one and only one target of hate get all the focus, and the rest of them ignored? Alison Slow Loris Writer & Adventuress Bremerton, WA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "All we ever have is here, now." ~ Ursula K. Le Guin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 11:32 AM To: Alison Loris <asloris@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Re: council resolution re antisemitism Ms. Loris, Thank you for writing in with your comments, although your understanding is not correct — there is no proposal to ban any speech in Council proceedings. The resolution on our agenda adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism — similar resolutions have been adopted by many cities and other jurisdictions around Washington over the past several years. The item is A10 at the Study Session this week, and you can find the full text of the resolution starting on page 610 of the council packet: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet Direct link to Packet PDF: https://meetings.municode.com/d/f?u=https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.ne t/brem-pubu/MEET-Packet-5880c94195ac4008bcf4847cc4c3f301.pdf&n=AgendaPacket- Study%20Session-December%2013,%202023%205.00%20PM.pdf Sincerely, This e-mail and further communication may be subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). From: Alison Loris <asloris@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2023 8:36 PM To: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jane Rebelowski <Jane.Rebelowski@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: council resolution re antisemitism Dear Councillors, It is my understanding that the Council is considering a resolution banning antisemitic speech in Council proceedings, including comments by members of the public. I write to express my firm opposition to such a resolution with such a narrow focus. For perspective on my view, please know that I stand in silent vigil with Kitsap Women in Black every week, calling for peace and justice in the Middle East. Note that Women in Black was founded by Israeli and Palestinian women together calling for an end to the war between their peoples, and has spread around the world. A photo of our vigil in Bremerton shares space with photos from London, Barcelona, and Tokyo on the international webpage, https://womeninblack.org/ I am appalled by the recent rise in hateful speech and actions targeting Jews. I am equally appalled by the rise in hateful speech and actions directed at Islamic, especially Palestinian and Palestinian-American people, and also at anyone who advocates for Palestinian people's human rights. While expressions of antisemitism draw immediate outrage from many Americans, Islamophobia is often ignored or even justified. In the months since the Hamas attack, I have seen widespread silencing, including firing from university positions, of anyone who speaks up for the humanity and the human rights of Palestinian people, even when they begin by condemning Hamas. I'm also seeing criticism of Israel's actions called antisemitic. even when the critics are themselves Jews. If you make a resolution to condemn antisemitism alone, you risk tacitly condoning the hate directed toward Palestinians. Quite apart from these issues, I've heard that recent comments via zoom in our City Council meetings have included racist, sexist, homophobic, and other hate speech. Hate speech, and physical attacks, are proliferating all around us, against Jews and Muslims, Asian-Americans, other BIPOC and LGBTQ people. How can you justify picking out just one group to protect, and ignoring the rest? An official resolution opposing hate speech against a single particular target creates the impression that all the groups not named remain acceptable targets for hate. Please do not act on any resolution condemning hate speech unless you make it inclusive. Otherwise you only add to the problem. Alison Slow Loris 1005 Warren Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 206-683-3860 Alison Slow Loris Writer & Adventuress Bremerton, WA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "All we ever have is here, now." ~ Ursula K. Le Guin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: Jackson Pincus <pincusj@ajc.org> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 4:03 PM To: IslamicCenterofKitsapCounty ICKC <ickc1140@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Regina Friedland <friedlandr@ajc.org> Subject: Re: Condemning Islamophobia alongside the Antisemitism Resolution Dear President Haji, I wanted to follow up on Council President Coughlin's introduction with an offer to sit down with you at your convenience to discuss how I and American Jewish Committee can be of support in ICKC's fight against Islamophobia. I will also apologize in advance for the length of this email, as I wanted to share some background to the work I have done with Council thus far as well as ensure I give proper attention to your community's concerns around Islamophobia. This resolution was written to specifically and narrowly address the concerns of the Jewish community in relation to the incident of antisemitism at Council, not just with our support, but our urging. I have fought to keep that narrow focus because this resolution is a response to a specific incident of antisemitic hate- not out of a desire to exclude other groups. All of that said, I also want to recognize and validate the absolutely unacceptable rise in Islamophobia, including the related hate crimes and violence your community is experiencing. Given these shared experiences, I want to be clear that I personally and AJC as an organization would likely (a qualifier I must add primarily because I need to run things by my team for approval prior to publicly supporting them) support an initiative to bring forward a resolution condemning Islamophobia in our communities, defining it in a non-legally-binding way (as IHRA does with antisemitism), and urging our shared city and community to act in support of our Muslim friends, family, and neighbors. I also want to share that whether it is the intent or not, delaying passage of the IHRA definition of antisemitism until we have a companion resolution for Islamophobia to present for passage at the exact same time is highly likely to be received within the Jewish community as a message that our lives and safety do not matter unless they are attached to those of another group. This is not a message I want to send to the Jewish community, and it is also not one I want to send to the Muslim community. The Children of Abraham, whether we trace to Yitzhak or Ishmael, are valuable independent of each other because we are human beings. I do agree, to be absolutely clear, that a second, separate resolution defining and condemning Islamophobia should also be passed to ensure the city has a full toolbox of anti-hate tools, and I will gladly speak up in support of one. At the same time, I believe the message of solidarity between our two communities will be sent just as strongly if Council President Coughlin or the whole Council were to make a statement upon passage of this IHRA resolution or during debate on it to clarify something along the lines of "a companion resolution addressing the scourge of Islamophobia is in progress in partnership with ICKC, and will be brought before the Council when our local Muslim community is satisfied that it addresses their safety concerns." But delaying one resolution purely in order to pair it with the other sends a message to both of our communities that optics matter more than substance, and I hope you will agree that both of our communities need action at this time more than anything else. I see no reason to wait to begin work on your proposed anti-Islamophobia resolution, and I know that members of our local Jewish community would voluntarily speak up in support of it when it is presented to Council- especially if members of ICKC also spoke up in support of passing the antisemitism resolution soon to be before Council. This is not a suggestion of a "trade" for support, to be clear- but it is true that while Jewish communities have often stood up for others, we feel right now more than ever that we are entirely alone in facing the violence against us. I thus believe that public shows of support from each of our communities towards the other would send the message of solidarity we intend, without forcing either a delay or a rush to pass two resolutions at exactly the same time. I would warmly welcome the opportunity to meet you in person at your convenience to ensure your community does not feel left behind. Please know how deeply thankful I am for your support of this resolution to help protect the Jews of Bremerton, and that we see this resolution as a start, not an end. We know that while this resolution provides a new tool for the city, it does not make progress on the sheer amount of antisemitism present in our world. Likewise, a companion anti- Islamophobia resolution would be unlikely to make meaningful progress on that scourge, while simultaneously acting as a necessary starting point to address it. This does not mean that either resolution is not worth passing- on the contrary, every fight must start somewhere, and I value the fact that you raised your voice to be the start of this one. Together in the long term, we can address the sheer amount of hatred faced by each of our communities via interfaith dialogue, public shows of support for each other's communities, and yes, ensuring that other minority communities have hatred against them properly addressed as well. I hope that the work to pass IHRA will serve as an inspiration for what is possible for every community, as a starting point for deeper partnership, and as a reminder to all of Bremerton that no matter how small in population the community is, we do not stand for hatred of any kind in this city. I look forward to meeting you in person at your convenience, and to pressing forward together in pursuit of a kinder, safer, more welcoming Bremerton. Sincerely, Jackson Pincus Assistant Director American Jewish Committee (AJC) pincusj@ajc.org 206.622.0885 ext. 5885 (Office) AJC.org Facebook.com/AJCGlobal Twitter.com/AJCGlobal From: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 3:31 PM To: IslamicCenterofKitsapCounty ICKC <ickc1140@gmail.com> Cc: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us>; Jackson Pincus <pincusj@ajc.org> Subject: Re: Condemning Islamophobia alongside the Antisemitism Resolution Dear Hamid Haji, Thank you so much for speaking up on this issue and against hate in our community. I want to clarify that the resolution's primary focus is to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) 2016 working definition of Antisemitism — similar resolutions have been adopted by many cities and other jurisdictions around Washington and nationally. The proposed resolution is A10 at the Study Session this week, and you can find the full text of the proposed resolution in the council packet: https://www.bremertonwa.gov/706/Agenda-Packet Direct link to Packet PDF: https://meetings.municode.com/d/f?u=https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.ne t/brem-pubu/MEET-Packet-5880c94195ac4008bcf4847cc4c3f301.pdf&n=AgendaPacket- Study%20Session-December%2013,%202023%205.00%20PM.pdf If there is a analogous working definition of Islamophobia, which you outlined, I would personally be so happy to work with you and others in drafting a similar Council resolution. This adoption of the IHRA definition was requested by local Jewish community leaders. I am CC-ing Jackson Princus, who has taken the lead on this request, and is the assistant director of the Northwest office of American Jewish Committee. I know AJC does anti-hate work that is not limited to antisemitism, and I am sure would be most supportive of a similar resolution defining Islamaphobia. Please know that you and and other members of ICKC, and the Muslim and Arab communities, are most welcomed by the Council at Council meetings, and we stand against all forms of hate, bias, and violence based on race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and/or disability. I believe the Bremerton Police Department has reached out to both ICKC and Congregation Beth Hatikvah to see what support they can offer, but if not, or any additional assistance is required, please reach out to BPD and the Mayor for that support. I'd also be happy to come visit ICKC and talk in person with you and members of your community. Sincerely, This e-mail and further communication may be subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). From: IslamicCenterofKitsapCounty ICKC <ickc1140@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 8:09 AM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Cc: Jeff Coughlin <Jeff.Coughlin@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Condemning Islamophobia alongside the An�semi�sm Resolu�on Islamic Center of Kitsap County 1140 Marine Dr. Bremerton, WA 98312 360-908-7399 December 11, 2023 Dear Bremerton City Council Members, I hope this leter finds you in good health and spirits. I am wri�ng to express my sincere apprecia�on for your recent resolu�on condemning an�semi�sm within our city. It is heartening to witness our local government taking a strong stance against discrimina�on and promo�ng a more inclusive community. However, I am wri�ng to draw your aten�on to another equally significant issue that demands our aten�on: Islamophobia. Islamophobia, the unwarranted fear, prejudice, and hatred towards Islam and its followers, has seen a distressing increase not only globally but also within our own city. It is crucial that we address this form of discrimina�on in conjunc�on with the an�semi�sm resolu�on, in order to foster a truly inclusive and tolerant society. Our city's strength lies in its diversity and the contribu�ons made by individuals from different backgrounds and faiths. We must stand united against all forms of discrimina�on, including Islamophobia, to uphold the values of equality, jus�ce, and religious freedom that our city cherishes. By condemning Islamophobia alongside the an�semi�sm resolu�on, we can send a powerful message of solidarity and reinforce our city's commitment to eradica�ng all forms of prejudice. It is essen�al that we work towards fostering an environment of understanding, respect, and acceptance for all individuals, regardless of their faith. The nega�ve impact of Islamophobia has been so great in our community that we've been forced to alter our daily rou�nes in life, especially in how we run our Mosque. We've had to enforce the difficult decision of limi�ng Mosque community ac�vi�es. We no longer have open door policy, now the doors must remain locked at all �mes including during service. We've had to set members of community as security while we perform our religious prayers. We encourage our community members not to go out alone at night, especially the women & children. I trust that the council will consider the urgency of addressing Islamophobia alongside the an�semi�sm resolu�on. Sincerely, Hamid Haji ICKC President From: dhaase111@yahoo.com <dhaase111@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 3:51 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Please be inclusive of all oppressed groups, not just one Dear City Council, I was deeply disturbed by the antisemitic Zoom bomb that happened at a recent City Council meeting. I appreciated that you took action in response; however, more is needed to prevent harm to oppressed groups. I am concerned that you may be ready to inflict harm as a City Council as you consider putting out a resolution only about antisemitism and not also including other groups who experience hate speech and harm, particularly our Muslim sisters and brothers. Perhaps you could reflect on the harm and uproar that happened when the Bainbridge island Schools superintendent put out a statement with sentiments of care only for our Jewish neighbors and excluded care of the Muslim community. We heard how much this hurt the Muslim community. Please stand by your resolution 3316 affirming the City’s commitment to the principles of equity and inclusion. It would not be inclusive if you only show concern for one oppressed group. Having friends of the Muslim Community, I understand how they experience hate and harm. Please stand with them as well as our Jewish Neighbors. Thank you, Debby Haase From: The Conduit <marwancameron@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:51 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Resolution to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism City Council, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my concerns and reservations about the recent proposed decree addressing antisemitism. While I acknowledge the importance of combating discrimination and hate speech, I believe that certain aspects of the decree may have unintended consequences on our community's fundamental values, particularly freedom of speech and political expression. Racism exists in various forms and can be found in any community, but it's crucial to avoid making sweeping generalizations about an entire group based on the actions of a few individuals. That being said, here are 10 historical examples where some members of the Jewish community were involved in discriminatory practices or faced allegations of racism against Black Americans. Please note that these examples are not representative of the entire Jewish community: Crown Heights Riots (1991): Tensions between the Black and Jewish communities in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, escalated after a car accident involving a Jewish driver and a Black child. The riots that ensued resulted in violence and strained relations between the communities. Redlining in Chicago (20th Century): There have been historical instances of Jewish landlords participating in discriminatory redlining practices that excluded Black Americans from certain neighborhoods, limiting their access to housing and economic opportunities. Blockbusting Practices (20th Century): In some instances, Jewish real estate agents were involved in blockbusting, a practice that exploited racial fears to persuade White homeowners to sell their properties at lower prices, leading to neighborhood racial changes. Discrimination in Private Schools (Various Instances): Some private Jewish schools in the United States have faced allegations of discriminatory admissions practices against Black students, reflecting broader issues in private education. Relations in the Entertainment Industry (Various Instances): Allegations have been made regarding discriminatory practices in the entertainment industry, including instances where Jewish individuals have been accused of contributing to racial stereotypes or discriminatory treatment. Racial Profiling (Various Instances): Like any community, there have been individual cases of racial profiling involving Jewish individuals who have been accused of discriminatory behavior or actions against Black Americans. Police Relations in Some Jewish Communities: There have been reported instances where Jewish community members, particularly in certain neighborhoods, have been criticized for contributing to tensions with law enforcement, which disproportionately affects Black residents. Labor Practices in Some Industries: In specific industries, there have been allegations of discriminatory labor practices involving Jewish employers, contributing to racial disparities in hiring and workplace treatment. Discrimination in Synagogues and Jewish Organizations: Instances of discrimination, whether in the form of exclusion or unequal treatment, have been reported in some synagogues and Jewish organizations, reflecting broader challenges of inclusivity. Allegations in Jewish-Owned Businesses: Some Jewish-owned businesses have faced accusations of discriminatory practices against Black employees or customers, contributing to racial disparities in economic opportunities. It's crucial to emphasize that these examples represent isolated incidents and do not reflect the beliefs or actions of the entire Jewish community. Racism is a complex issue that requires ongoing efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote understanding between different communities. Additionally, many Jewish individuals and organizations actively work against racism and discrimination. 1. Freedom of Speech: The decree, while aiming to combat antisemitism, needs to be scrutinized to ensure it does not infringe upon the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Individuals have the right to express their opinions, including criticisms of a country or its policies, without facing legal consequences. 2. Clarity in Definitions: The decree outlines manifestations of antisemitism, but there is potential ambiguity in how certain terms are defined. For example, what constitutes "mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations" may be subjective and open to interpretation. Vague definitions could lead to the suppression of legitimate political discourse. 3. Protection of Political Expression: Political expression, even if critical of a particular state or government, is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies. The decree may inadvertently discourage individuals from engaging in necessary debates about foreign policy, especially in the context of the State of Israel. 4. Potential for Overreach: The list of prohibited actions and statements is extensive and may be seen as overly broad. There is a risk that the decree could be used to suppress not only hate speech but also legitimate criticism, stifling open discourse on important geopolitical issues. 5. The Right to Self-Determination: While the decree seeks to prevent denial of the Holocaust and accusations against Israel, it is essential to consider the right to self-determination. Robust debate about the founding and existence of a state, including Israel, should be allowed within the bounds of respectful discourse. 6. Double Standards Concern: The decree mentions the prohibition of applying double standards to Israel, which could be interpreted as suppressing specific forms of criticism. This raises concerns about fairness and equal treatment, as other democratic nations are not held to the same standard. 7. Impact on Academic Freedom: In academic and intellectual pursuits, scholars and researchers must have the freedom to critically examine historical events and political structures without fear of legal repercussions. The decree's restrictions may have a chilling effect on academic freedom. 8. Balancing Security and Rights: While the protection of individuals and communities from discrimination and harm is essential, it is crucial to balance these objectives with the protection of constitutional rights. Striking the right balance requires clear and narrowly tailored legal provisions. In conclusion, a constitutional argument against the decree would center on safeguarding the principles of freedom of speech, protecting political expression, and ensuring that measures to combat antisemitism do not inadvertently lead to censorship or the stifling of legitimate discourse. The challenge is to formulate legislation that effectively addresses hate speech without encroaching on constitutionally protected rights. Expressing concerns about potential discrimination for sharing opinions, even critical ones, is a valid consideration in today's climate. As someone who values open dialogue and constructive discourse, I worry about the growing trend of cancel culture across the country. Many individuals, irrespective of their background, have faced severe consequences, including the loss of livelihoods, for expressing unpopular opinions or engaging in discussions that challenge prevailing narratives. The fear of being discriminated against for sharing nuanced perspectives can have a chilling effect on free speech, hindering our ability to engage in meaningful conversations about complex issues. It is crucial to foster an environment where diverse opinions are respected, and individuals are not unfairly penalized for expressing their thoughts, allowing for a more inclusive and understanding society. https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working- definition-antisemitism About the IHRA non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism The IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combating it. But to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is. The experts in the IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial built international consensus around a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism, which was then adopted by the Plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important practical tool for its Member Countries. The working definition has empowered many to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national levels. Information on endorsement and adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism can be found here. Countering antisemitism today also means countering Holocaust distortion. Explore the IHRA's Toolkit Against Holocaust Distortion to learn more and to find ways to get involved. The working definition of antisemitism In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism. On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to: Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:  Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.  Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.  Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non- Jews.  Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).  Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.  Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.  Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.  Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.  Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.  Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.  Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries. Marwan Cameron From: Zann <zanyajacob@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 4:09 PM To: City Council <City.Council@ci.bremerton.wa.us> Subject: Comment for Council Study Session, 12/13/23, Item 10 Dear City Council Members, I'd like to submit a comment for the study session today, Wednesday, December 13, 2023, concerning Item 10. Resolu�on to adopt the Interna�onal Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working defini�on of an�semi�sm. As the Rabbinic Leader of Kitsap's Pardess Jewish Community, I want to express my deep apprecia�on for City Council's ini�a�ve in confron�ng an�seme�sm. All you are doing to protect targeted communi�es by calling out hate speech is par�cularly welcomed in this �me when both an�seme�sm and islamaphobia are on the rise. Thank you! In talking with members of the Muslim Community, I know that they, along with Jews, are afraid for their children and places of worship. Although I know this is not your inten�on in the slightest, when you call out only an�seme�sm, some people who hold to islamaphobic beliefs may feel emboldened, and members of the Muslim and Arab Community will feel even more vulnerable. My request is that when you adopt the Interna�onal Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working defini�on of an�semi�sm, you concurrently adopt a similar defini�on of islamaphobia. Thank you for standing strong for equity and inclusion. Sincerely, Reb Zann Jacobrown Pardess Jewish Community