08/14/2018 - Regular - Packet Revised
REVISED
City of Port Orchard Council Meeting Agenda
August 14, 2018
6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. CITIZENS COMMENTS
(Please limit your comments to 3 minutes for items listed on the Agenda and that are not for a
Public Hearing. When recognized by the Mayor, please state your name for the official record)
4. CONSENT AGENDA
(Approval of Consent Agenda passes all routine items listed below, which have been distributed
to each Councilmember for reading and study. Consent Agenda items are not considered
separately unless a Councilmember so requests. In the event of such a request, the item is
returned to Business Items.)
A. Approval of Checks, Payroll, and Electronic Payments
B. Approval of the July 17, 2018, Council Work Study Session Minutes Page
3
C. Approval of a New Vendor Location for Temporary Vendor Applicant
Moon Beem’s Thai-ish Café (Rinearson) Page 7
5. PRESENTATION
A. Student Advisory Council (Kira Greer)
B.A. Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan (Bond) Page 15
6. PUBLIC HEARING
7. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Discussion: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan (Bond) Page
75
B. Adoption of a Resolution, Approving the Collection of Funds for the
2018 Chimes & Lights Tree Decorating Contest (Rinearson) Page 77
C. Adoption of a Resolution, Approving the Dunmore Final Plat (McCormick
Woods Phase III) (Bond) Page 83
D. Approval of Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 038-17 with HDR
Engineering Inc. for the 2017-2018 Well No. 9 Water Quality Retrofit-
Engineering Support (Dorsey) Page 101
E. Approval of the July 24, 2018, Council Meeting Minutes Page 107
F. Discussion: 6-Year Street Paving Plan (Putaansuu) Page 113
8. REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES
9. REPORT OF MAYOR
Mayor:
Rob Putaansuu
Administrative Official
Councilmembers:
Bek Ashby
Chair: ED/Tourism/LT Committee
Staff: Development Director
Finance Committee
KRCC / PSRC TransPol / KRCC TransPol
KRCC PlanPol-alt / PRTPO
Shawn Cucciardi
Finance Committee
Land Use Committee
PSRC EDD-alt
Fred Chang
Utilities Committee
Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC)
Staff: Development Director
Jay Rosapepe
ED/Tourism/LT Committee
Utilities Committee
Chair: Lodging Tax Committee
Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC)
KRCC-alt / KRCC TransPol-alt
Kitsap Transit-alt
John Clauson
Chair: Finance Committee
Staff: Finance Director
Kitsap Public Health District-alt
KEDA/KADA-alt
Cindy Lucarelli
Chair: Utilities and SAC Committee
Staff: Public Works Director
Chair: Chimes and Lights Committee
Staff: City Clerk
KEDA/KADA
Scott Diener (Mayor Pro-Tempore)
Chair: Land Use Committee
Staff: Development Director
ED/Tourism/LT Committee
PSRC Growth Mgmt-alt
Department Directors:
Nicholas Bond, AICP
Development Director
Mark Dorsey, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Tim Drury
Municipal Court Judge
Noah Crocker, M.B.A.
Finance Director
Geoffrey Marti
Police Chief
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, CPRO
City Clerk
Contact us:
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407
Please turn off cell phones during meeting and hold your questions for staff until the meeting has been adjourned.
The Council may consider other ordinances and matters not listed on the Agenda, unless specific notification period is required.
Meeting materials are available on the City’s website at: www.cityofportorchard.us or by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (360) 876-4407.
The City of Port Orchard does not discriminate on the basis of disability. Contact the City Clerk’s office should you need special accommodations.
August 14, 2018, Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 2
10. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS
11. CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please limit your comments to 3 minutes for any items not up for Public Hearing. When recognized by the Mayor, please state
your name for the official record)
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110, the City Council may hold an executive session. The topic(s) and the
session duration will be announced prior to the executive session.
13. ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE MEETINGS Date & Time Location
Finance TBD, 2018; 5:15pm City Hall
Economic Development and Tourism September 10, 2018; 9:30am City Hall
Utilities September 27, 2018, 9:30am City Hall
Sewer Advisory August 15, 2018; 6:30pm SKWRF*
Land Use TBD, 2018; 9:30am DCD**
Lodging Tax Advisory TBD City Hall
Festival of Chimes & Lights August 20, 2018, 3:30pm City Hall
Outside Agency Committees Varies Varies
*South Kitsap Water Reclamation Facility, 1165 Beach Drive
**DCD, Department of Community Development, 720 Prospect Street, Port Orchard
CITY COUNCIL GOOD OF THE ORDER
City of Port Orchard
Council Meeting Minutes
Work Study Session Meeting of July 17, 2018
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Robert Putaansuu called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll call was taken by the City Clerk as follows:
Councilmember Ashby Present
Councilmember Chang Present
Councilmember Clauson Present
Councilmember Cucciardi Present
Mayor Pro-Tem Diener Present
Councilmember Lucarelli Present
Councilmember Rosapepe Present
Mayor Putaansuu Present
Staff present: Police Chief Geoffrey Marti, Community Development Director Bond, Finance Director
Crocker, City Attorney Cates, Judge Drury, Court Administrator Ells, City Clerk Rinearson, and Office
Assistant Whisenant were also present.
Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Putaansuu led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. Introduction of New Court Administrator, Sharon Ells
Judge Tim Drury introduced new Court Administrator, Sharon Ells, and provided a brief history of her
background with Kitsap County Courts.
Court Administrator Ells thanked the City for the warm welcome and the County Judges that came
to support her transition.
Council Direction: No direction was given to staff.
2. Presentation: Kitsap County Courthouse
Mayor Putaansuu introduced the presentation topic and the presenters; Kitsap County Administrator
Karen Goon, President Ron Thomas of Thomas Architecture Studios, and Commissioner Charlotte
Garrido.
Page 3 of 122
Kitsap County Administrator Goon informed of the process beginning last year, starting with the
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) of a consultant to do a phased build in the existing area. The RFQ
led to partnership with Ron Thomas, who previously has worked on comparable projects with Pierce
and Thurston Counties. Also, involved in the process is the technical team consisting of; District and
Superior Court Administrators, Information Systems Department, Sheriff Department, Angie Silva
with the Policy Staff, and representatives from the Public Defense and Clerk’s Office. Feasibility study
gave a general idea of what the building size and costs might be. Thanked Mayor Putaansuu and
Community Development Director Nick Bond on walk through of possible project impacts with the
draft zoning regulations.
Mr. Thomas informed of additional consultant HOK Architecture, which is a large national
Courthouse Architectural Firm, working on the project as well. Process started about five months
ago documenting existing conditions; focusing on the multiple different renovations, a detailed staff
analysis of requests, industry standards, and potential growth needs projected through 2030 and
2045 to prevent future funding requests. Stated that the Commissioners are united in their
requirements of the project.
Through the Courtroom Diagrams, a certain size of court room was shown and how they could be
arranged with a secure area, a holding room, and designated areas for the judges and jury. The other
areas are support spaces; the Jury Selection Room, Judge Chambers, Prosecutor and Clerk Offices.
Explained the logistics of the location and options, with incorporating the comprehensive plan and
keeping the surrounding area in mind.
Various options of the proposed concepts were discussed and compared. These options discussed
parking, project costs (i.e. impact fees, site development, utilities, taxes, furnishings, phasing
expenses, property acquisition, internal expenses), and the advantages and disadvantages. Currently
working on the study of funding options and action plan.
Councilmembers discussed parking concerns.
Mayor Putaansuu brought forward the idea of sharing a location between the Kitsap County Sheriff’s
Department and Port Orchard Police Department.
Mr. Thomas, Mayor, and councilmembers further discussed the potential parking options and option
5 completion.
Kitsap Sun Reporter Chris Henry asked about building height specifics.
Mr. Thomas explained the various court room uses.
Council Direction: No direction was given to staff.
Page 4 of 122
3. Draft Sinclair Inlet Regulations Ordinance
Mayor Putaansuu opened the topic of discussion by emphasizing the numerous amounts of issues
related to derelict boats in the Sinclair Inlet.
City Attorney Cates informed that the ordinance has been modeled after Oak Harbor and addresses
issues the police department is currently facing.
Police Chief Marti explained the reasons for the need of implementing the ordinance.
Mayor, councilmembers, and staff discussed suggested changes to the draft ordinance, the
implementation of monitoring, clarifications on definitions, other state agency assistance or
involvement, and liveaboards.
Council Direction: Staff was directed to make suggested revisions and present to Council next month.
4. Equipment Rental Revolving Fund (ER&R) & Policies
Finance Director Crocker presented the draft ordinance for the ER&R Fund and explained the
purposes of the policy and the policy.
Mayor, councilmembers, and staff discussed purchasing used and surplus of vehicles.
Finance Director Crocker presented the fleet standardization policy for Public Works, Police, and
Administration.
Mayor, councilmembers, and staff discussed the standardization policy.
Lastly, Finance Director Crocker explained the management and account identification on small and
attractive assets.
Council Direction: Council directed Finance Director Crocker to bring the ordinance and policies to
the next Finance Committee Meeting.
5. Zoning Code Update
Community Development Director Bond informed of the current Zoning Code Updates being
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Councilmembers and staff discussed clarifications and scrivener errors in various sections.
Page 5 of 122
Council Direction: Staff is to make corrections to the various sections, as discussed.
6. CENCOM [Kitsap 911] Board of Directors
Mayor Putaansuu explained the by-laws changes made at the previous CENCOM [Kitsap 911]
meeting and presented the potential language change for determination of alternates. Council
agreed with the language provided.
Council Direction: Mayor is to inform CENCOM [Kitsap 911] of the adopted proposed alternative
language revisions.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS:
• McCormick Village Park Project bringing budget amendment forward for the project cost
shortfall. Also, contractor is suggesting cost alternatives between a boardwalk or bridge.
Council Direction: No direction was given to staff.
• Mayor Putaansuu would like to provide a letter of support of Kitsap Transit’s grant proposal
for the Southworth Dock Facility.
MOTION: By Councilmember Diener, seconded by Councilmember, to provide support for
the Southworth Dock Facility Grant.
The motion carried. Councilmember Clauson abstained.
• Councilmembers continued discussed on the Kitsap County Courthouse Project.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m. No other action was taken. Audio/Visual was successful.
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
Page 6 of 122
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Consent Agenda 4C Meeting Date: August 14, 2018
Subject: Approval of a New Vendor Location Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC
for Temporary Vendor Applicant City Clerk
Moon Beem’s Thai-ish Café Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: Mr. and Mrs. Byford, owners of Moon Beem’s Thai-ish Café, are requesting permission to
vend at two different locations, both on City property/ROW. The first location is using a few parking
spaces located near the Kitsap County campus and the second location at 640 Bay Street.
The Byford’s are seeking permission to set up a food truck in a few parking stalls near the Kitsap County
Office buildings. The two locations they prefer are: 1) on the corner of Sidney and Division Street and 2)
on Division Street across from the gravel public parking area closest to Sidney. The Kitsap County
Commissioners are supportive of both locations being requested.
Again, the Byford’s are seeking permission to set up a food truck in the gravel parking lot of 640 Bay
Street. The City has granted temporary approval for the use of for the Masa Pizza vendor and various
other events. The vendor understands it may be on a month-to-month basis, until the pending sale is
finalized.
The vendor has obtained the necessary permits from the Kitsap County Health District and has met all
the requirements outlined in the Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 5.96.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the vendor locations for a temporary vendor permit,
Moon Beem’s Thai-ish Café, as described.
Motion for Consideration: I move to approve a Temporary Vendor permit to Moon Beem’s Thai-ish
Café for placing a food truck in the locations described near the Kitsap County campus and at 640 Bay
Street, on a month-to-month basis.
Fiscal Impact: Daily Temporary Vendor License Fee of $15.00 per day or $200 per month.
Alternatives: Do not approve the locations and provide staff with direction.
Attachments: Temporary Vendor Application, map, and email stating Commissioners support.
Page 7 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 8 of 122
and at 640 Bay Street
Page 9 of 122
Page 10 of 122
Page 11 of 122
Page 12 of 122
Page 13 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 14 of 122
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Presentation 5B Meeting Date: August 14, 2018
Subject: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Prepared by: Nicholas Bond, AICP
Corridor Plan DCD Director
Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Issue: The City’s Consultant, SCJ Alliance, has provided a draft Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan.
On August 14, 2018, SCJ Alliance will provide a public presentation on the draft plan. Following this
presentation, the City will make the draft plan available for public review and comment. The administration
has scheduled a public hearing date on the draft plan for September 25, 2018 at the regular City Council
meeting. Written comments on the draft plan will be due by 4:30 P.M. on September 25th, 2018, although oral
and written comments will be accepted during the public hearing on the evening of September 25th, 2018.
Depending on the scope and nature of the public comments and based on City Council input, the plan may be
revised prior to being finalized for City Council acceptance. The City Council will be asked to accept the final
draft of the plan by resolution at a regular council meeting prior to the end of 2018. Adoption of the Corridor
Plan will require a comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with POMC Title 20.
Background: The Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan is being prepared by the City’s consultant, SCJ
Alliance, to provide a long-range development plan for these two critical transportation corridors within the
City. Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are the major arterials serving the recently-annexed Bethel-Sedgwick
subarea, which is identified as a Center of Local Importance. These roads also provide connections to SR 16,
downtown, the Southworth ferry terminal, and major commercial areas. The Bethel and Sedgwick corridors
have been identified in the City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Comprehensive Plan as
priorities for plan development and implementation.
Attachments: Draft Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan (August 2018)
Page 15 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 16 of 122
City of Port Orchard
August 2018 - DRAFT
BETHEL ROAD AND
SEDGWICK ROAD
CORRIDOR PLAN
Page 17 of 122
This page intentionally left blank
Page 18 of 122
Table of Contents
PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
PLANNING CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
WSDOT SR 16 CONGESTED CORRIDOR STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 5
PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 5
KITSAP COUNTY BICYCLE FACILITIES PLAN ......................................................................................................................................... 6
COUNTY BETHEL CORRIDOR STUDY .................................................................................................................................................. 6
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
OPEN HOUSE............................................................................................................................................................................... 9
COMMUNITY SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
PROJECT WEBSITE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
CITY COUNCIL BRIEFINGS ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
CRASH HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
TYPES OF CRASHES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15
CRASHES WITH INJURIES .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
TRAFFIC FORECAST ............................................................................................................................................................ 17
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................................. 19
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................................................................. 22
PROJECT PHASING ............................................................................................................................................................. 29
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................................. 29
INTERIM AND FULL-BUILD DESIGNS................................................................................................................................................ 30
PHASING STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................................................... 31
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 35
TRANSIT ................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
PEDESTRIANS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 39
BICYCLES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 40
ROUNDABOUT DESIGN ................................................................................................................................................................ 42
CRITICAL AREAS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 44
COUNTY-OWNED PARCELS ........................................................................................................................................................... 44
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................................................................................................................................................... 44
SPEED LIMIT .............................................................................................................................................................................. 44
PARKING ................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
ACCESS MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................... 45
ADJACENT STREET CONNECTIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 46
STATE FACILITIES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46
LANDSCAPING ............................................................................................................................................................................ 47
UTILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Page 19 of 122
COSTS & FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................................. 50
COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 50
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure: 1 Study Area Map ..........................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2: Public Opinion of Street Character by Study Corridor ........................................................................... 10
Figure 3: Crash Frequency in Study Area ............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Crash Types by Study Corridor ................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 5: Corridor Plan Schematic .......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 6: Bethel Road – Typical Section A .............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 7: Bethel Road – Typical Section B .............................................................................................................. 27
Figure 8: Sedgwick Road – Typical Section ............................................................................................................ 27
Figure 9: Sensitivity Analysis Results ..................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 10: Phasing Strategy Diagram ..................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 11: Study Area Map ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 12: Midblock Crossing Design Guidance ..................................................................................................... 40
Figure 13: Bike Lanes at Bus Stops Design Guidance ............................................................................................. 42
Figure 14: Roundabout Design Guidance ............................................................................................................... 43
Table 1: Crashes per Intersection by Study Corridor ............................................................................................. 13
Table 2: Summary of Evident and Serious Injury Crashes by Corridor ................................................................. 16
Table 3: Traffic Volume Forecast by Study Segment ............................................................................................. 17
Table 4: Traffic Volume Forecast by Study Segment ............................................................................................. 22
Table 5: Preliminary Cost Estimates by Project Phase .......................................................................................... 50
Page 20 of 122
Project Overview
The overarching objective of the study was to develop a long-range vision for two critical transportation
corridors in the City of Port Orchard, Sedgwick Road (State Route 160) and Bethel Road. The two corridors
represent major arterials serving the recently annexed portion of the city referred to as the Bethel/Sedgwick
subarea which provide connections to SR 16, downtown Port Orchard, the Southworth Ferry Terminal, and
large-scale commercial developments.
Port Orchard is a small but growing city located in the Central Puget Sound and adjacent to some of the region’s
largest employment centers. The population of Port Orchard more than doubled in the last twenty years.
Between 2010 and 2016, after the most recent annexation, the population increased by an additional 14-
percent and all signs point to continued growth in the future which means additional stress on existing services
and infrastructure, like the transportation network. For a number of reasons, this study comes at an opportune
time for the City of Port Orchard:
♦ Recent and proposed changes to the City’s Zoning Code and Map have the potential to increase
residential densities and encourage mixed-use development within the Bethel/Sedgwick subarea which
will draw additional people to the area to live, work, and visit.
♦ As development occurs along these corridors, the City would like to be proactive in terms of the
character of the corridors. Identifying the roadway cross section, right-of-way needs and multimodal
facilities will aid the design of projects along both streets.
♦ As the economy in the Central Puget Sound continues to grow, increasing housing prices along the I-5
corridor are forcing residents to look toward communities like Port Orchard for more affordable housing.
♦ Kitsap Transit’s plans to expand their Fast Ferry service and begin operating passenger-only ferry service
between the Southworth ferry terminal and downtown Seattle by 2020 – creating a direct link between
Port Orchard and the largest employment center in the state.
In preparing this plan, the City coordinated with various stakeholders, reached out to the public for input,
evaluated safety and traffic count data, and weighed alternatives to come to the final plan. The conceptual
design presented in this report aims to:
♦ Address existing deficiencies in the transportation network
♦ Support existing businesses and the anticipated economic growth
♦ Improve pedestrian and bicycle access and quality of life for residents
♦ Provide a blue-print for development opportunities and guide mitigation
Generally , the conceptual design takes a roundabout corridor approach to both corridors. Elements of the
corridor design include:
♦ Intersection control improvements designed to meet future traffic needs
♦ Access management for driveways along the corridors, improving traffic flow and safety while ensuring
adequate circulation
♦ Sidewalks, bicycle facilities, landscaping, and stormwater upgrades the length of the corridors
♦ Transit facilities and emergency service accommodations
The following report describes the existing conditions, considers future conditions, establishes a conceptual plan
for both corridors, proposes project phasing, provides design guidance, and a strategy for implementing the
plan.
Page 21 of 122
Study Area
The study area consists of two corridor segments. The
study area is illustrated in Figure 1 and the existing
conditions of each of the study corridors are described
below.
Bethel Road
Bethel Road is a north-south arterial that connects Port
Orchard’s downtown waterfront to the southern city
limits. To the south, Bethel Road crosses SR 16 and
becomes Bethel-Burley Road SE which connects to Burly
and Purdy. This study evaluated the 2.1-mile segment of
Bethel Road between Mile Hill Drive (SR 166) and
Sedgwick Road (SR 160). Within the study area, Bethel
Road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and carries
approximately 1,400 vehicles during the PM peak hour.
Most of the corridor is one-lane in each direction with a
center turn lane north of Lund Ave. There is an existing
one-lane roundabout intersection at Mile Hill Drive (SR
166) and three signalized intersections at Sedgwick Road,
Walmart driveway, and Lund Avenue with a plan to install
a temporary signal at Blueberry Road. In addition, there
are a number of driveways, access points, and two-way,
stop controlled intersections along the corridor.
Sedgwick Road
Sedgwick Road is an east-west arterial traversing Kitsap
County and the City of Port Orchard and terminating at the
Southworth Ferry Terminal. East of SR 16, Sedgwick Road
is a state facility, SR 160. This study evaluated the 0.7-mile
segment of Sedgwick Road between the SR 16 northbound
ramps and Bethel Road. Within the study area, WSDOT
classifies Sedgwick Road as a Principal Arterial with a Class
Three access management designation which specifies
330-feet minimum spacing between access points 1.
The study segment has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and carries approximately 1,900 vehicles during the PM
peak hour. Most of the corridor is one-lane in each direction with a center turn lane in sections. The only
signalized intersections are located at either end of the study segment. There are also two-way, stop controlled
intersection at Bravo Terrace, Geiger Road, and Ramsey Road.
1 WSDOT Olympic Region Development Services. Highway Access Management Guidebook. April 2002.
<https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F1CB0918-81F7-4127-85D5-0689D08C95CA/0/HAMGFinalMasterWeb.pdf>
Sedgwick Rd looking east toward Bravo Terrace
Bethel Road at Lundberg Road looking south
Bethel Road looking north toward Vallair Court
Page 22 of 122
Figure: 1 Study Area Map
Page 23 of 122
This page intentionally left blank
Page 24 of 122
Planning Context
There are a number of planning documents and studies that have informed and influenced this effort. The
following is a summary of previous or on-going plans and their relevance to this planning effort.
WSDOT SR 16 Congested Corridor Study
Concurrent with this study, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducted a study of SR
16 to address congestion issues at highway interchanges between the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Gorst, as well
as portions of SR 3 and SR 304 in Pierce and Kitsap counties. The study will summarize existing and future
conditions based on data and stakeholder input and propose near-, mid-, and long-term traffic management
strategies to improve travel along the corridor. WSDOT had not yet released the findings of the study when our
study was completed. Preliminary study results shared at a Technical Advisory Group meeting in September
2017 indicate that the Port Orchard interchanges, Tremont and Sedgwick, are expected to have significant
performance gaps in the 2040 Baseline, worse than any other interchanges evaluated in terms of meeting LOS
performance thresholds in the AM and PM peak periods.
Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan
Consistent with the requirements of Washington State’s
Growth Management Act (GMA), Port Orchard has adopted
a Comprehensive Plan which establishes a framework for
decision-making and development in the City by ensuring
that ordinances, regulations, programs, and projects are
carried out in accordance with the community values and
goals. The most recent version of the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted in June 2018.
Land Use Chapter
The land use chapter identifies the Sedgwick/Bethel area
and the Tremont/Lund/Bethel area as Centers of Local
Importance. In 2017, the City adopted a new zoning map
which increased the development potential along Sedgwick
Road and Bethel Road, converting a number of low-density
residential parcel to medium- and high-density residential
zones.
At the same time that this corridor study was taking place,
the City of Port Orchard was working on an update to the
City’s Zoning Code. The changes include adding new zoning
designations for Residential Mixed Use and Neighborhood
Mixed Use intended to be applied to the Bethel/Sedgwick
area. As a conservative measure, the traffic forecast
developed for this study assumed the adoption of the proposed zoning code changes. In June of 2018,
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments were adopted. Additional zoning changes were under
consideration at the time of this study which would move the City to a form-based zoning code.
Excerpt of the Zoning Map (July 25, 2018)
Page 25 of 122
Transportation Chapter
In the transportation chapter, both Sedgwick Road (SR 160) and Bethel Road within the study area are classified
as principal arterials as well as T-3 freight facilities, meaning they carry between 300,000 and 4 million tons of
freight annually. Both Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are also identified as planned nonmotorized routes. The
planned treatment is on-street bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
The Comprehensive Plan also sets the Level of Service (LOS) standard for City and State transportation facilities.
Port Orchard has adopted a LOS standard of LOS D, based on the PM peak hour, for all segments and
intersections within the arterial street system. The City’s LOS standard does not apply to State facilities within
the City of Port Orchard as minimum LOS for intersections on State facilities are set by WSDOT. SR 16 is
designated by WSDOT as a Highway of Statewide Significance (HSS) and is assigned minimum LOS D. SR 160 is
designated by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) as a Tier 2 highway of regional significance with LOS D. The
segment of Bethel Ave between Salmonberry Road and Lund Avenue is listed as a current system need because
it has a LOS F which is below the City’s minimum LOS D.
The City recognizes that as Port Orchard grows and becomes more urbanized, travel delay will become a reality,
especially during peak periods. As such, the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Engineer, may
determine the following three exemptions to the LOS standards:
♦ It is not practical to improve a specific intersection to achieve higher LOS standards, or
♦ Other improvements may be considered as equivalent mitigation in lieu of achieving the capacity LOS
standards, or
♦ Exempt specific intersections or street segments from the LOS standards for a specific period of time.
Kitsap County Bicycle Facilities Plan
In 2001, Kitsap County published a Bicycle Facilities Plan which established facility design standards and
prioritized future bicycle projects. In this plan, installing bicycle lanes on Sedgwick Road (SR 160) was identified
as an Opportunity Project. Although, it was noted that a separate shared path, for bicycles and pedestrians,
would be the preferred design depending on available right-of-way.
County Bethel Corridor Study
Prior to the annexation of this part of Port Orchard in 2009, Kitsap County carried out a Bethel Road Corridor
Study, working closely with the community to define a future vision of the Bethel Road corridor and develop a
design that supported that vision. The resulting design was a four-lane section, two travel lanes in each
direction, and a 16-foot raised center median with left-turn access provided every 300-feet. The design also
included 8-foot sidewalk, 5-foot bike lanes, and 7-foot landscaping strips on both sides of the corridor.
In some ways, things on Bethel Road haven’t changed drastically since the County’s study. The corridor profile
and intersections are largely the same. A small number of parcels have been developed in the area. And the
traffic issues that existed then, still exist today. However, in other ways, the field of transportation planning and
engineering has changed significantly. In the last 10 years, there has been a shift toward complete streets
designs that emphasize access and safety for all roadway users, regardless of mode. Roundabouts are now
widely-recognized as viable alternatives to signalized intersection and public approval of them is growing.
Additionally, new or updated traffic modeling tools allow for more refined analysis of alternatives.
Page 26 of 122
The current planning effort was able to use and build upon some of the more static elements of the previous
Kitsap County Bethel Road Corridor Study, such as stormwater and wetland analysis. However, the City’s study
expands the study area, revisits the community’s vision for the corridors, and takes a fresh look at the design
alternatives and operational analysis.
Page 27 of 122
Page 28 of 122
Public Involvement
Public involvement is a critical component of any planning process – facilitating the exchange of information
between the project team and the stakeholders. An effective plan must be informed by the people who will be
most affected by its implementation and aim to accurately reflect their needs, priorities, and vision. Throughout
the study, a variety of methods were used to share information with and gather feedback from community
members, key stakeholders, and City leadership.
Open House
A public open house was held on October 23rd, 2017 to introduce community members to the study and give
them an opportunity to share their ideas, concerns, and suggestions for both corridors. Notification of the open
house was shared on social media, the project webpage, and through a direct mailer to property owners in the
study area. Over 50 people attended the event and we received over 60 comments, both in person and via
email. The open house consisted of staffed exhibit boards, a constraints and opportunities mapping exercise,
and a ‘build your own street section’ station.
Comments focused on improving safety and reducing congestion along both corridors. The most shared
comments included:
♦ Need for intersection control at Bethel
Road and Salmonberry Road
♦ More capacity needed on Sedgwick
Road, suggested two travel lanes in each
direction
♦ More capacity on Sedgwick Road, east of
the SR 16 interchange (outside of the
scope of this study)
♦ More capacity needed on Bethel Road,
suggested additional travel lanes and/or
a two-way center turn lane
♦ Difficult to make turns and poor sight
distance at Sedgwick Road and Bravo
Terrace
♦ Many participants supported
roundabouts with some people
expressing caution regarding design
♦ Request for longer right-turn lanes at critical intersections
♦ Sidewalks and bike lanes needed on both corridors
Community Survey
In February and March of 2018, an online community survey was conducted which gathered input to help shape
the plan recommendations. The survey link was shared on social media, the project webpage, and e-mailed
directly to participants of the public open house. Over 600 residents responded with nearly 500 responses
received per corridor.
Mapping exercise at public open house on October 23rd, 2017
Page 29 of 122
As illustrated in Figure 2, the survey confirmed the City’s understanding that Sedgwick Road is viewed as more
of a commuter route while Bethel Road is characterized as a commercial access and circulation corridor.
Compared to Sedgwick Road, more respondents felt that Bethel Road is more of a multimodal street, meant to
move people safely and efficiently regardless of their travel choice.
Figure 2: Public Opinion of Street Character by Study Corridor
Nearly all respondents said they experience congestion on both corridors during the peak hours and feel the
existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities are insufficient. The large majority of respondents felt that there was
sufficient parking available for businesses on Bethel Road and did not identify the need for on-street parking
along the corridor. On Bethel Road, pedestrian safety and improved vehicle access to commercial properties is
more of a priority while on Sedgwick Road, keeping traffic flowing seems to be the greater priority. A more
detailed summary of survey results is provided in Appendix A.
Project Website
A project-specific webpage was developed and maintained over the course of the project to share background
information, keep a record of public meeting materials, solicit input from the community, and provide contact
information.
Stakeholder Engagement
Throughout the planning process, we shared information and meet with key stakeholders to discuss the study
recommendations including WSDOT, South Kitsap School District, Kitsap Transit, Puget Sound Energy, West
Sound Utility District, and South Kitsap Fire and Rescue. Their review and comments were used to refine the
corridor plan and ensure the design accommodates needs specific to their operations. As the project advances
from conceptual design into preliminary and final design, further engagement with these and other key
stakeholders will be required.
Page 30 of 122
City Council Briefings
The project team presented to the City Council three times over the course of the study. A summary of each of
these events is provided below.
September 7, 2017 – City Council Work Session
The project team shared the project scope, schedule, and outreach approach. Councilmembers were led
through a mapping exercise to gather their initial thoughts on existing conditions, community needs, and their
ideas related to the two study corridors.
January 16, 2018 – City Council Work Session
The project team presented some of the initial operational analysis findings and sought direction on the corridor
sections. At this meeting, the Council supported the widening of Sedgwick Road to accommodate two lanes in
each direction as it is a critical commute corridor and State Route providing access between SR 16 and the
Southworth Ferry Terminal. However, the Council expressed a clear interest in keeping Bethel Road a narrower
street with one lane in each direction to calm traffic and make it a safer, more inviting place for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
August 14, 2018 – City Council Meeting
Pending
Page 31 of 122
This page intentionally left blank
Page 32 of 122
Crash History
Crash data along the study segments were analyzed to identify any safety issues or collision patterns. WSDOT
provided crash data for the analysis period between January 2013 to June 2017. Table 1 is a summary of the
number of crashes reported by intersection within the study area. Crashes that occurred at the intersection of
Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are shown in both tables depending on which corridor the crash actually took
place.
Table 1: Crashes per Intersection by Study Corridor
January 2013 to June 2017
BETHEL ROAD Number of
Crashes Reported
Mile Hill Dr (SR 166) 8
SE Lincoln Ave 6
SE Lundberg Rd 2
Mitchell Rd SE 17
SE Lund Ave 40
SE Vallair Ct 5
Safeway/Rite Aide 12
SE Bethel Valley Ln 10
Walmart Signal 6
SE Salmonberry Rd 27
SE Blueberry Rd 2
SE Sylvin Lane 3
SE Piperberry Way 9
SE Sedgwick Rd 2
Midblock* 78
TOTAL 227
SEDGWICK ROAD Number of
Crashes Reported
SR 16 NB Ramps 16
Bravo Terrace 34
Geiger Rd SE 32
Ramsey Rd SE 26
Bethel Rd SE 33
Midblock* 83
TOTAL 224
* Considered midblock if not reported to have occurred
within 200-ft of an intersection
In total, there were 451 crashes within the study area over the period for which data was provided. When
calibrated for road segment length and vehicle volumes, Sedgwick Road experiences over twice as many crashes
compared to Bethel Road. Crashes on Sedgwick Road are fairly evenly distributed along the study segment while
certain intersections on Bethel Road experienced more crashes than others, such as Lund Avenue, Salmonberry
Page 33 of 122
Road, and Mitchell Road. Figure 3 is a heat map showing where all crashed reported in the last five years have
occurred along the study segments. The black dots indicate each incident and the color gradient from yellow to
red indicates the frequency of crashes.
Figure 3: Crash Frequency in Study Area
January 2013 to June 2017
Page 34 of 122
Types of Crashes
This study also considered the types of crashes that occurred on both of the study corridors within the analysis
period. Figure 4 summarizes the types of crashes common to each corridor. Within the ‘Other’ category are
head on collisions, overturned vehicles, and pedestrian crashes.
Figure 4: Crash Types by Study Corridor
January 2013 to June 2017
Rear-end crashes were the most common crash type on both corridors but 73% of the crashes that occurred on
Sedgwick Road were predominantly rear-end crashes while rear-end crashes made up 48% of the total crashes
on Bethel Road. Rear-end crashes are often indicative of congested conditions and make the case for increasing
corridor capacity, especially on Sedgwick Road.
Crashes related to vehicles turning either onto or off of the corridor were more common on Bethel Road.
Entering or turning vehicle crashes made up 34% of the total crashes on Bethel Road whereas only 17% of the
crashes on Sedgwick Road were of this type. This is partly explained by the fact that there are so many more
driveways and intersections along Bethel Road when compared to Sedgwick Road. The amount of turning
movement related crashes experienced on Bethel Road makes a case for access management along the corridor.
Crashes with Injuries
On Bethel Road, nine crashes with evident injuries and three crashes with serious injuries, two of which involved
pedestrians, were documented within the analysis period. Sedgwick Road saw five crashes with evident injuries
and two crashes with serious injuries, no pedestrian injuries were reported.
Table 2 on the following page provides a summary of all reported crashes that involved evident injuries and
serious injuries.
Page 35 of 122
Table 2: Summary of Evident and Serious Injury Crashes by Corridor
January 2013 to June 2017
Evident Injuries
Bethel Road Type Vehicle
Action No. Injuries Contributing Factor
Mid-Block (3000 block) Vehicle Rear-end 1 Speeding
Mid-Block (3400 block) Vehicle Object 1 Inattention
Mid-Block (4600 block) Vehicle Rear-end 1 Distraction (inside)
Bethel Valley Lane Vehicle Rear-end 1 Speeding
Lund Avenue Vehicle Left-turn 1 Inattention
Mitchell Road Pedestrian Right-turn 1 None (not listed)
Mitchell Road Vehicle Left-turn 1 Distraction (unknown)
Piperberry Way Vehicle Rear-end 1 Distraction (outside)
Vallair Court Vehicle Sideswipe 1 Did not yield to vehicle
Sedgwick Road Type Vehicle
Action No. Injuries Contributing Factor
Mid-Block (0.31 mp) Vehicle Object 1 Inattention
Mid-Block (0.45 mp) Vehicle Object 2 Inattention / Speeding
Mid-Block (0.47 mp) Vehicle Overturn 1 Speeding
Mid-Block (0.68 mp) Vehicle Rear-end 2 Distraction (outside)
Bethel Road Vehicle Left-turn 2 Did not yield to vehicle
Serious Injuries
Bethel Road Type Vehicle
Action No. Injuries Contributing Factor
Lincoln Avenue Vehicle Left-turn 1 Improper turn
Lincoln Avenue Vehicle Object 2 Distraction (unknown)
Salmonberry Road Pedestrian Going Straight 1 Did not yield to vehicle
Sedgwick Road Type Vehicle
Action No. Injuries Contributing Factor
Bravo Terrace Vehicle Left-turn 1 Did not yield to vehicle
Bethel Road Vehicle Rear-end 2 Inattention
Page 36 of 122
Traffic Forecast
As a part of the corridor study, a traffic volume forecast was developed by the City’s on-call traffic engineering
firm, Transportation Solutions, Inc. (TSI), to understand what traffic volumes and patterns will look like in the
horizon year of 2040. The travel demand model was based on the Port Orchard citywide planning model which
included the 2017 zoning map designations. Further refinements to the network were based on direction from
City staff to reflect the expected zoning code changes. The network was also updated to reflect all the projects
identified in the City’s 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, which were assumed to be completed by the
horizon year. Lastly, the travel demand model was calibrated using counts collected in January 2017, which
were also used in the SR 16 corridor model as a part of WSDOT’s SR 16 Congested Corridor Study.
The plan takes a conservative approach to the analysis and assumes that the development potential of the study
area would be fully realized by 2040. Based on the traffic patterns and volumes, the study area was broken into
the following three study segments:
♦ Bethel Road North – Mile Hill Drive to Lund Avenue
♦ Bethel Road South – Lund Avenue to Sedgwick Road
♦ Sedgwick Road – SR 16 to Bethel Road
These same study segments were used in the alternatives analysis.
The results of the forecast predict a 45% increase in traffic volumes on Sedgwick Road, an 85% increase of traffic
volume on Bethel Road between Sedgwick Road and Lund Avenue, and a 55% increase on Bethel Road north of
Lund Avenue. Table 3 summarizes the existing and future PM peak hour volumes for each study segment,
combining both directions of traffic.
Table 3: Traffic Volume Forecast by Study Segment
Existing Volumes
2017
Forecasted Volumes
2040
Percent
Increase
Bethel Road North
(Mile Hill Dr to Lund Ave) 1,420 2,175 55%
Bethel Road South
(Lund Ave to Sedgwick Rd) 1,395 2,560 85%
Sedgwick Road
(SR 16 to Bethel Rd) 1,915 2,780 45%
Forecasted volumes were used to analyze traffic operations, evaluate intersection control alternatives, perform
a sensitivity analysis to establish phasing, and inform the roundabout design. Further details regarding the
analysis can be found in Appendix B.
Page 37 of 122
This page intentionally left blank
Page 38 of 122
Conceptual Design
The development of the preferred alternatives for both Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road came down to some
important initial questions. What is the character of the street we are aiming to create? What type of
intersection control will process traffic most efficiently and safely in the future? What is the best approach to
access management? The answer to each of these questions comes with trade-offs related to multimodal
access, project costs, and corridor operations that must be weighed and considered when developing and
deciding between design alternatives.
Alternatives Analysis
Early in the planning process, we addressed three major alternatives related to street character, intersection
control, and access management to advance our thinking and shape our approach to the alternatives analysis. A
brief discussion of these key considerations is provided below.
Street Character
There are many design elements that make up the character, or feel, of a street. The number of vehicle lanes,
presence of plantings, sidewalk width, on-street parking, building lines, and illumination are just some of the
kind of things that effect how a person interacts with and experiences a corridor. There is rarely enough right-of-
way available to easily accommodate every desired element so when allocating street space, difficult choices
must be made.
Traditionally, the field of traffic engineering has focused on designing streets to move vehicles most efficiently
using the peak hour as a measuring stick. More recently however, there has been a growing interest in designing
streets that move people, not just cars. As a result, many jurisdictions are willing to accept lower levels of
service during the peak period if it means a street functions better for everyone for the vast majority of time.
Designing streets for the busiest times of day often leads to overly wide roadways which encourages speeding
behaviors off-peak and reduces corridor safety and walkability. While congestion or capacity issues can often be
addressed by adding more vehicle lanes, doing so often comes at the expense of the human-scale amenities like
comfortable sidewalks, street furniture, landscaping elements, bicycle facilities, and other qualities that
encourage streets to be social places.
When surveyed about the character of the two study corridors, the majority of respondents shared that
Sedgwick Road is seen as a critical commuter route, while Bethel Road is considered a commercial access
corridor with a slightly greater need for multimodal considerations. During a public work session, Port Orchard’s
City Council expressed an interest in developing Bethel Road as a multimodal corridor and raised concerns about
reduced safety and walkability if the corridor were to be wider than three lanes.
ALTERNATIVES: In terms of alternatives, the decision regarding street character can be distilled to whether the
study segments have one vehicle lane in each direction or two vehicle lanes in each direction. The community’s
preference for providing multimodal elements (transit, bikes, pedestrians) were not considered optional.
Intersection Control
When intersection control is found to be warranted, traffic operations is often the first factor to consider when
deciding between control types. A roundabout that operates within its capacity will generally perform better
than a signalized intersection when processing the same traffic volume under the same right-of-way limitations.
Page 39 of 122
Intersections with heavy left-turn movements or intersections that are closely spaced make particularly good
candidates for roundabouts.2
Roundabout intersections have been proven to be safer than signalized intersections. Roundabouts are designed
to keep speeds lower, prohibit dangerous behaviors (such as red-light running), and remove some of the most
serious types of conflict points (including left-turn or head-on conflicts). All of these factors significantly reduce
the occurrence of crashes involving serious or fatal injuries in roundabouts when compared to conventional
signalized intersections. Collisions that do occur in roundabouts tend to be rear-ends or sideswipes which are
generally less serious and result in fewer injuries.3
Another way to evaluate intersection control type is to compare their footprints or right-of-way impacts. For
low-volume intersections, signals tend to require less right-of-way that roundabouts. In high-volume
intersections or on corridors with access management where U-turns have to be accommodated, signalized
intersections can take up a similar amount of space as roundabouts because they require additional lanes for
vehicle storage and turning capacity.
Several publications by the Federal Highways Administration discuss the ‘wide nodes, narrow roads’ concept in
relation to roundabout corridors. Signalized corridors operate best when they manage platoons of traffic which
requires more through lanes between signals to keep the platoon traveling as a whole and to provide adequate
storage when traffic is stopped. Whereas, roundabout corridors do not require platoon progression and actually
operate better when traffic is dispersed more evenly. As a result, roundabouts can be made adequately large at
the node, or intersection, to process traffic during the peak hour while maintaining a narrower roadway profile
between intersections.4 Reducing the number of travel lanes makes it feasible to reduce right-of-way impacts
and accommodate other street elements such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and/or planted buffers or
stormwater facilities. Narrow roads also have traffic calming benefits during the off-peak periods and allow for
shorter, safer midblock crossings.
There isn’t a clear winner when it comes to comparing signals and roundabouts in terms of cost. The reported
costs of roundabout construction have been shown to vary significantly from location to location. For instance, if
you are upgrading an unsignalized location, constructing a roundabout is likely to cost more than installing a
signal which requires less modifications to the roadway area and curb lines. However, when comparing adding
capacity to an existing signalized intersection versus converting it to a roundabout, the costs may be more even.
In addition to capital construction costs, operation and maintenance costs, or life-cycle costs, should be
considered. Signalized intersections and roundabout intersections have different types of O&M costs.
Roundabouts often require more illumination than a signalized intersection when it is dark. Whereas, signals
require electricity all day to manage traffic as well as illumination overnight. Most roundabouts require
2 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide
(Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-32.
3 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide
(Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-33.
4 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide
(Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 2-7.
Page 40 of 122
maintenance of landscaping and static signage while signals require periodic servicing to keep the signal systems
in good working order (e.g., bulb replacement, detector maintenance, and signal re-timing).5
ALTERNATIVES: In terms of alternatives, the decision regarding intersection control boils down to whether the
study intersections are designed as roundabouts or signalized intersections where stop-control is not sufficient.
Access Management
Development anticipated for both the Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road corridors will bring new residents,
businesses, and services to the City of Port Orchard. With economic growth comes more people, generating new
trips along the corridor and potential increasing conflicts among road users. Frequent curb cuts and unrestricted
left turn movements create conflicts between vehicles. In addition, they interrupt the sidewalk and bike lanes
and pose challenges for pedestrians and cyclists using the corridor.
The intent of access management is to mitigate those conflicts while maintaining the safety and efficiency of the
arterial. There are a number of techniques that can be used to manage access including intersection and
driveway spacing standards, center turn lanes, and median treatments.
Raised medians have many benefits including separating opposing flows of traffic which prevents head-on
collisions. Studies have shown significant reductions in the number and severity of collisions on high-volume
commercial corridors with raised medians. Median controlled corridors concentrate turning movement activity
which makes drivers actions more predictable and keep traffic moving more smoothly and efficiently.
Additionally, medians provide refuge and make it easier for pedestrians, of all ages and abilities, to safely cross
the street.
As traffic volumes increase, left-turns in and out of driveways will become more difficult and dangerous for
drivers to make. Many driveways will become default right-in/right-out access points and the intersections will
have to be able to accommodate more U-turns. On signalized corridors, adequate width must be provided at the
intersection to accommodate U-turns which can make streets unnecessarily wide and difficult to cross.
Alternatively, roundabout intersections are always designed to allow U-turn movements.
Two-way left turn lanes allow drivers to make a two-stage turn when turning left onto the main arterial,
meaning drivers can look for a gap in one direction of traffic to enter the median and then merge into the other
direction of traffic. They also are helpful for keeping turning vehicles out of the through traffic which reduces the
probability of rear-end crashes. However, if the demand for the left-turn lane is high and providing adequate
storage is not possible or driveways are spaced too closely, left-turning vehicles may spill back into the through
lane and cause a congestion or conflict point.
ALTERNATIVES: In terms of alternatives, the decision regarding access management focused on providing a
raised center median or a two-way, left-turn lane.
5 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide
(Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-33.
Page 41 of 122
Preferred Alternative
Each of the three key considerations discussed above presents two alternative treatments to decide between:
♦ Street Character: One travel lane in each direction vs. two travel lanes in each direction
♦ Intersection Control: Roundabout versus Signalized intersection
♦ Access Management: Two-way left-turn lane versus raised center median
To identify a preferred alternative, a decision was made for the three alternative treatments by study segment
based on a combination of traffic data and operations, crash history, community input, adjacent land use and
development potential, right-of-way considerations, and public input. Table 4 summarizes the results of our
alternatives analysis followed by a detailed discussion for each of the three study segments.
Table 4: Traffic Volume Forecast by Study Segment
Street Character Intersection Control Access Management
One Travel Lane vs.
Two Travel Lanes
Roundabouts vs.
Signalized Intersections
Raised Median vs.
Two-way Left-turn Lane
Bethel Road North
(Mile Hill Dr to Lincoln Ave)
One lane in each
direction Roundabouts Two-way Left-turn Lane
Bethel Road South
(Lund Ave to Sedgwick Rd)
One lane in each
direction Roundabouts Raised Median
Sedgwick Road
(SR 16 to Bethel Rd)
Two lanes in each
direction Roundabouts Raised Median
Bethel Road North – Mile Hill Drive (SR 166) to Lund Avenue
While volumes in this segment are forecasted to rise by 55% by the year 2040, most of the growth is related to
development in other areas of the City and outside the City, not related to new trip generating uses along this
particular segment. Traffic volumes for this study segment are the lowest among the three and the development
potential of parcels along this segment are limited by Blackjack Creek to the west and Mitchell Road to the east.
As a result, land use along this segment tends to be smaller footprint businesses as opposed to some of the high
trip generating uses located in the southern segment of Bethel Road which require larger development sites.
This type of land use pattern also means that turning movements are more evenly dispersed along the segment
as opposed to concentrated at particular locations. As a result, driveways process less traffic but are more
frequent. Access to these businesses would be difficult to consolidate and are best served by a two-way left-turn
lane.
Additionally, the stretch of roadway between Lincoln Avenue and Mile Hill Drive (SR 166) represents the longest
distance between intersections, over 4,000-feet, in the study area. If a raised median were constructed along
this segment, drivers would potentially have to travel over a mile out of their way to get to a business or
residence located on the opposite side of the street. The existing roadway is a three-lane section, with one
travel lane in each direction and a center two-way left-turn lane, operates well now and is expected to operate
will in the future. A three-lane profile is also consistent with the City Council’s vision for the character of Bethel
Road.
Page 42 of 122
There is an existing safety issue in the area of Lincoln
Avenue and Mitchell Road in this study segment. Of the
twelve crashes reported to have evident or serious injuries
in the last five years, two of them occurred at Lincoln
Avenue and two of them occurred at Mitchell Avenue. One
of which was a vehicle turning right onto Mitchell Road from
northbound Bethel Road and striking a pedestrian crossing
the street. Geometrically, the wye-intersection at this
location creates an unsafe situation because right-turning
vehicles are able to make the soft turn at higher speeds and
the pedestrian crossing is very long. For this reason, the plan
recommends converting Mitchell Road between Bethel Road
and Lincoln Avenue from two-way to one-way northbound.
At the intersection of Mitchell Road and Lincoln Avenue,
two-way stop control on Lincoln Avenue is the
recommended control. The one-way conversion could
happen independently of the larger project.
In terms of intersection control in this segment, the plan
recommends realigning Lundberg Avenue to create a four-
leg intersection at Lincoln Ave and constructing a single-lane
roundabout which is the safest and most efficient
intersection control alternative. An illustration of this
realignment concept is shown to the right.
Bethel Road South – Lund Avenue to Sedgwick Road (SR 160)
Based on input from the City Council, the vision for Bethel Road is a safe and walkable commercial street that
includes comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The existing right-of-way on Bethel Road is limited,
especially compared to most of the Sedgwick Road segment. Adding more travel lanes would have right-of-way
impacts, require more land acquisition, increase costs, and potentially reduce the available space for pedestrian
and bicycle amenities. One additional lane in each direction would also increase the roadway width by 22-feet
which would drastically change the character of the corridor. A four-lane profile would double pedestrian
exposure at midblock crossings locations and likely increase speeding behaviors off-peak. For these reasons, the
corridor plan recommends a two-lane roadway with a raised median for the Bethel Road South study segment.
Traffic volumes on the Bethel Road South segment are forecasted to grow by 85% which is the largest increase
anticipated in the study area. To process this amount of traffic with one-lane in each direction, the ‘wide nodes,
narrow roads’ approach is recommended with roundabout intersections at all major intersections and a raised
center median between intersections. The center median will prohibit turning movements between
intersections, reducing friction and allowing traffic to flow more smoothly.
It should be noted, if traffic volumes ever reach the forecasted levels, it is likely this segment of Bethel Road will
experience significant congestion and rolling queues during peak periods. However, an increase in vehicle delay
during peak periods must be weighed against the benefits of constructing a street that moves people, not just
cars, more safely and efficiently at all other times of the day. The City may choose to approve an exemption to
the LOS standards if and when it ever becomes an issue.
Concept sketch at Mitchell Rd/Lincoln Ave/Lundberg Rd
Page 43 of 122
Sedgwick Road (SR 160) – SR 16 to Bethel Road
The Sedgwick Road study segment currently carries the highest traffic volumes in the study area and is
forecasted to carry 45% more traffic in the horizon year. Respondents to the community survey characterized
Sedgwick Road as a commuter route and identified existing capacity issues as a top concern. The crash history
also reflects the need to address congestion with rear-end collisions representing nearly three-quarters of those
reported in the last five years. Considering the direct connection to the SR 16 interchange, traffic along this
segment should process as efficiently as possible.
Based on these factors and the availability of existing right-of-way through this segment, the corridor plan
recommends a four-lane roadway profile, two travel lanes in each direction, with a raised center median. The
center median will prohibit turning movements between intersections, reducing friction and allowing traffic to
flow more smoothly. Additionally, a raised center median will improve safety by removing the risk of head-on
collisions. While only four head-on collisions were reported in the study area during the most recent 5-year
period, all of them occurred on Sedgwick Road.
Steep slopes are an important feature of this roadway segment. Not only will they influence development
patterns here, there is a considerable hill traveling eastbound on Sedgwick Road from SR 16 which can present a
barrier for bicyclists, especially those who are less comfortable riding next to moving traffic. In addition, the high
traffic volumes and recommended four-lane profile will make this segment more intimidating to cyclists. As a
way to accommodate less experienced riders given these conditions, it is recommended the sidewalk on
Sedgwick Road be widened by 2-feet to function more like a shared-use path.
Roundabouts are the recommended traffic control on Sedgwick Road because of their ability to process traffic
most efficiently. Intersections with heavy left turns, such as eastbound Sedgwick Road at Bethel Road, make
especially good roundabout candidates 6. In addition, roundabouts are the preferred control on state facilities.
According to the WSDOT Design Manual, “Due to the safety and operational performance record, a roundabout
is the preferred intersection control type and is required to be evaluated.”7 The Bravo Terrace roundabout is
located just east of the existing full-access intersection to maximize the distance between the SR 16 northbound
ramps and the roundabout. Likewise, the existing full-access intersections at Geiger Road and Ramsey Road
limited to right-in/right-out and the full-access intersection is consolidated in between the two at the crest of
the hill to improve sight-lines and reduce upstream and downstream queuing conflicts.
Summary of Alternatives Analysis
Based on the results of the alternatives analysis, Sidra modeling software was used to design roundabouts that
accommodate the horizon year volumes. Only the intersections of Bethel Road at Blueberry Road and Lincoln
Avenue are designed as single-lane roundabout. Figure 5 provides a schematic of the corridor plan while Figures
6, 7, and 8 illustrate the typical street sections by study segment. As indicated by the dashed yellow line, the City
recommends Bethel Road – Typical Section A to be applied on Bethel Road south of Sedgwick Road. Roll plots of
the conceptual design and draft right-of-way plans are attached as Appendices C and D.
6 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide
(Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-32.
7 Washington Department of Transportation, WSDOT Design Manual M 22.-01.14, Chapter 1300 Intersection Control Type.
July 2017. <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1300.pdf>
Page 44 of 122
This page intentionally left blank
Page 45 of 122
Figure 5: Corridor Plan Schematic
Page 46 of 122
Figure 6: Bethel Road – Typical Section A
Figure 7: Bethel Road – Typical Section B
Figure 8: Sedgwick Road – Typical Section
Page 47 of 122
This page intentionally left blank
Page 48 of 122
Project Phasing
Implementing the corridor improvements outlined in this plan as a single project would be unrealistic for many
reasons. Given a constrained funding environment, phasing creates smaller projects that are easier implement
projects and can compete for different funding opportunities. Phasing also allows the most critical needs to be
addressed earlier rather than waiting until funding is lined up to complete the entire project, which may never
happen. Lastly, implementing a project in phases minimizes construction impacts to the traveling public and
better accommodates construction staging needs. A summary of the sensitivity analysis methodology and the
resulting phasing strategy are discussed below. Further analysis details are provided in Appendix E.
Sensitivity Analysis
As a means of developing a project phasing strategy, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using roundabout
modeling software (Sidra, Version 9). The analysis had a few different applications which included:
♦ Developing a project phasing and funding prioritization strategy
♦ Identifying potential interim roundabout designs for each intersection
♦ Refining the full-build design of each roundabout in the horizon year
To prioritize the need for improvements along both study corridors, straight-line growth was assumed between
existing conditions and the 2040 forecasted volumes. These yearly forecasted volumes were then plugged into
the model at each intersection to identify when, or at what volume threshold, the intersection fails and an
improvement project would be needed. For this analysis, intersection failure was defined as meeting one or
more of the following conditions:
♦ For signalized or roundabout intersections, average intersection delay below LOS D
♦ For two-way stop-controlled intersection, delay on a minor-leg approach below LOS D with volumes that
meet the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises (MUTCD) signal warrants
♦ For any intersection type, queue lengths that exceed the distance to the next closest controlled
intersection
Based on the sensitivity analysis, Figure 9 shows the order in which the existing intersection configurations are
expected to fail over time. The results of this analysis were used as the basis for the proposed phasing strategy.
As the graph illustrates, and as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the intersection of Bethel Road and
Salmonberry Road is currently operating below the LOS standards and meets warrants for intersection control
today. Therefore, Salmonberry Road is recommended as the first project phase.
In reality, vehicle volumes will not grow uniformly along the corridors but instead it will spike at particular
intersections as specific parcels are developed. While the straight-line growth analysis provides critical insights
about emerging needs, the phasing strategy will need to be revisited as development in the area occurs and
traffic patterns change.
Page 49 of 122
Figure 9: Sensitivity Analysis Results
Interim and Full-Build Designs
Using the Sidra modeling software, the roundabouts were designed to accommodate the 2040 forecasted
volumes. These designs are referred to as the ‘full-build design’. The right-of-way plans and conceptual designs
included in Appendices C and D show the roundabout design and right-of-way needs for the full-build design.
However, each intersection was evaluated to determine if there was a simpler roundabout design that would
satisfy traffic conditions for a significant period of time to justify implementing an interim design between now
and the horizon year. For instance, the existing roundabout at Bethel Road and Mile Hill Drive (SR 166) was
designed to someday accommodate a second circulating lane but was initially built with only one-circulating
lane. To this day, the single-lane roundabout operates above the LOS standards but if traffic volumes ever out
grow the current design, the existing roundabout can be modified to accommodate a second circulating lane.
The analysis began by evaluating at what point the existing control, either signal or two-way stop control, would
fail (as described about) based on the straight-line growth forecast. When the existing control dipped below
acceptable LOS, a single-lane roundabout was evaluated to see if it would operate above the failure standards
and for how long. If it was expected to operate above failure standard for more than 10 years without needing
modifications, a single-lane roundabout was identified as an acceptable interim design. If a single-lane
roundabout did not operate above the failure standard, then the roundabout design was modified until it
performed at an acceptable level. The results of this analysis indicate that the intersection of Bethel Road and
Salmonberry Road is the only intersection for which a single-lane roundabout would be an acceptable interim
design.
Page 50 of 122
Phasing Strategy
The proposed phasing strategy, based on the results of the sensitivity analysis, is illustrated in Figure 10 and a
detailed description of each phase is provided below.
Figure 10: Phasing Strategy Diagram
Page 51 of 122
The project phasing strategy takes into consideration the impacts of access management. All phases consist of a
roadway segment that is book-ended by roundabouts to ensure vehicles and trucks can turn around at the
intersection to access properties on the opposite side of the street. The only exception being Phase 2 (Sedgwick
Road - Corridor Widening) which does not assume the construction of the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road
roundabout. As an interim measure, the segment of Sedgwick Road between the new intersection roundabout
and Bethel Road would be constructed as an eastbound left-turn only lane. When Phase 3 is implemented, the
center turn lane would be removed and replaced with a raised, planted median.
Phase 1: Bethel Road – Salmonberry Rd to Blueberry Rd
♦ Construct two roundabouts on Bethel Road at both Salmonberry Road and Blueberry Road. While right-
of-way should be acquired to accommodate the full build-out roundabout design for the 2040 horizon
year volumes, the design and number of circulating lanes required to support opening day volumes will
be determined during the design phase. At Salmonberry Road, our analysis identified a single-lane
roundabout as an interim design. However, a two-lane roundabout with two-lane approaches
southbound and northbound on Bethel Road is expected to be required to meet LOS standards in 2040.
At Blueberry Road, our analysis did not identify an interim design and a single-lane roundabout is
expected to meet LOS standards in 2040.
♦ Construct the Bethel Road segment between Salmonberry Road and Blueberry to the Bethel Road –
Typical Section A specifications including sidewalk, bioretention swale, curb and gutter, bike lane, one
travel lane in each direction, and a raised center median.
♦ In order to adequately accommodate detour traffic during construction, Ramsey Road between Sedgwick
Road and Salmonberry Road will need to be improved to meet City standards prior to implementation of
Phase 1, including resolving some existing right-of-way issues. A preliminary cost for this improvement
has been included in the estimate for Phase 1.
Phase 2: Sedgwick Road (SR 160) – Corridor Widening
♦ Construct two roundabouts on Sedgwick Road at both Bravo Terrace and a new intersection located
between Geiger Road and Ramsey Road. While our analysis did not identify an interim design for either
roundabout, the final design and number of circulating lanes needed will be confirmed during the design
phase.
♦ Construct the Sedgwick Road segment between SR 16 NB ramps and Bethel Road to the Sedgwick Road –
Typical Section specifications including shared path, bioretention swale, curb and gutter, bike lane, and
two travel lanes in each direction.
♦ Construct a raised center median on Sedgwick Road between the two roundabout intersections and an
eastbound left-turn only lane between the new intersection to Bethel Road to allow access at Ramsey
Road until a roundabout is constructed at the Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road intersection.
Phase 3: Bethel Road – Blueberry Rd to Sedgwick Rd (SR 160)
♦ Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road. While our analysis did not
identify an interim design for this roundabout, the final design and number of circulating lanes needed
will be confirmed during the design phase.
♦ Construct the Bethel Road segment between Blueberry Road and Sedgwick Road to the Bethel Road –
Typical Section A standards including sidewalk, bioretention swale, curb and gutter, bike lane, one travel
lane in each direction, and a raised center median.
Page 52 of 122
♦ Convert the eastbound left-turn lane on Sedgwick Road between the new intersection to Bethel Road to
a raised center median and convert Ramsey Road to right-in/right-out access only.
Phase 4: Bethel Road – Lund Ave to Salmonberry Rd
♦ Construct two roundabouts on Bethel Road at both Lund Avenue and Walmart Access Road. While our
analysis did not identify an interim design for either roundabout, the final design and number of
circulating lanes needed will be confirmed during the design phase.
♦ Construct the Bethel Road segment between Lund Avenue and Salmonberry Road to the Bethel Road –
Typical Section A standards including sidewalk, bioretention swale, curb and gutter, bike lane, one travel
lane in each direction, and a raised center median.
Phase 5: Bethel Road – Lund Ave to Mile Hill Dr (SR 166)
♦ Construct a single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Bethel Road and Lincoln Road/Lundberg
Avenue. Lundberg Avenue is proposed to be realigned with Lincoln Avenue to create a four-leg
intersection. Our analysis did not identify an interim design and a single-lane roundabout is expected to
meet LOS standards in 2040.
♦ Construct the Bethel Road segment between Lincoln Avenue and Mile Hill Drive to the Bethel Road –
Typical Section B standards including sidewalk, bioretention swale, curb and gutter, bike lane, one travel
lane in each direction, and a two-way, left-turn lane.
♦ Construct the Bethel Road segment between Lund Avenue and Lincoln Avenue to the Bethel Road –
Typical Section A standards including sidewalk, bioretention swale, curb and gutter, bike lane, one travel
lane in each direction, and raised center median.
♦ Convert Mitchell Road between Bethel Road and Lincoln Road to a one-way street northbound, rerouting
southbound vehicles on Mitchell Road to Lincoln Avenue and Bethel Road. The City may choose to
implement this conversion at any time, unrelated to the Bethel Road improvements.
Page 53 of 122
This page intentionally left blank
Page 54 of 122
Design Considerations
The conceptual designs for Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road presented in this plan provide a solid foundation for
the work that will follow. However, as projects identified in this plan move into preliminary and final design,
there are a number of details that will need to be nailed down. The following section discusses some of the
important design considerations and provides guidance on how to approach them.
Transit
Incorporating transit operations was an
essential element of the corridor design. Kitsap
Transit currently operates Route 8 along Bethel
Road which provides fixed-route bus service
between the Port Orchard Ferry Dock and the
Fred Meyer at Sedgwick Road. The bus
operates six days a week with half-hour
headways from 5:00 AM to 7:30 PM. Currently,
Route 8 operates one-way service between
Lincoln Road and Bay Street, with northbound
stops on Mitchell Road and southbound stops
on Bethel Road. In addition to Route 8,
worker/driver buses run on both Bethel Road
and Sedgwick Road, making stops at existing
bus stops as well as other locations as
necessary.
According to Kitsap Transit’s Planning
Department, they have plans to expand and
improve their service delivery in Port Orchard.
In the near-term, they plan to double bus
frequency on Bethel Road, decreasing
headways from 30-mintues to 15-minute
headways. They are also considering providing
bi-directional service on either Bethel Road or
Mitchell Road between Lincoln Road and Bay
Street.
Kitsap Transit is also interested in siting a new
park-and-ride lot in the vicinity of the SR 16
interchange at Sedgwick Road (SR 160) and
considering expanding bus service to include a
route on Sedgwick Road. In the long-term, they have identified Bethel Road as a potential location for Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT).
In developing the conceptual corridor plan for Bethel Road, the City worked with Kitsap Transit to determine the
optimal bus stop treatment. According to Kitsap Transit, pullouts are generally undesirable because drivers have
Route map for Kitsap Transit’s Route 8 bus in 2018
Page 55 of 122
difficulty re-entering the flow of traffic which causes service delays and increases the chance of collisions.8
However, there are some circumstances where pullouts are necessary including at stops with longer than
average bus dwell times, such as heavily used stops or those serving disabled or elderly populations that rely on
the ramp to board the bus. Pullout bus stops may also be appropriate at layover or relief points along a bus
route.
Bus Stops in Roundabouts
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) guidance on roundabout design 9 states that bus stops should be
located sufficiently far from the roundabout entries and exits and should never be located in the circulating lane.
Bus stops can be located on either on the approach (near-side) or the exit (far-side) and the report provides the
following guidance for both treatments:
Near-side stops: If a bus stop is to be provided on the near side of a round-about, it should typically be
located far enough away from the splitter island so that a vehicle overtaking a stationary bus is in no
danger of being forced into the splitter island, especially if the bus starts to pull away from the stop. If
an approach has only one lane and capacity is not an issue on that entry, the bus stop could be located
at the pedestrian crossing in the lane of traffic. This is not recommended for entries with more than
one lane because vehicles in the lane next to the bus may not see pedestrians. At multilane
roundabouts, a nearside bus stop can be included in the travel lane (a bus bulb-out design), as long as
it is set back at least 50 ft (15 m) from the crosswalk. Nearside stops provide the advantage of having
a potentially slower speed environment where vehicles are slowing down, compared to a far-side
location where vehicles may be accelerating upon exiting the roundabout.
Far-side stops: Bus stops on the far side of a roundabout should be located beyond the pedestrian
crossing to improve visibility of pedestrians to other exiting vehicles. Far-side stops result in the
crosswalk being behind the bus, which provides for better sight lines for vehicles exiting the
roundabout to pedestrians and keeps bus patrons from blocking the progress of the bus when they
cross the street. The use of bus pullouts has some trade-offs to consider. A positive feature of a bus
pullout is that it reduces the likelihood of queuing behind the bus into the roundabout. A possible
negative feature is that a bus pullout may create sight line challenges for the bus driver to see vehicles
approaching from behind when attempting to merge into traffic. It may also be possible at multilane
roundabouts in slow-speed urban environments to include a bus stop without a bus pullout
immediately after the crosswalk, as exiting traffic has an opportunity to pass the waiting bus.
Proposed Bus Stop Treatment
Considering the guidance from both Kitsap Transit and FHWA, the conceptual design proposes three bus stop
treatments as described below depending on the geometry of the street. In all cases, the curbside bioretention
swale will be replaced by a concrete boarding area which will also provide a location for the bus stop sign. As
warranted, Kitsap Transit will provide and install shelters require a 10-foot by 15-foot concrete pad which is
typically located at the back of sidewalk.
8 Kitsap Transit. Bus Stop Design Manual.
9 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide
(Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010.
Page 56 of 122
Bus Stop – Type A
In-lane bus stop located on a street with a center turn lane. When loading and unloading passengers,
vehicles can use the center turn lane to get around the stopped bus. If the bust stop is located mid-block, a
midblock crosswalk (as described in the Pedestrian section) should be considered. If a crosswalk is present,
the bus stop should be located on the far-side of the crosswalk to keep sight lines of crossing pedestrians
clear.
Bus Stop – Type B
In-lane bus stop located on a street with a center median and access control. When loading and unloading
passengers, vehicles will be stopped behind the bus. At single-lane roundabout approaches, the bus stop
should be located on the nearside of the roundabout before the pedestrian crossing. At mid-block locations,
a midblock crosswalk (as described in the Pedestrian section) should be provided and the bus stop can either
be located in front of or behind the crosswalk.
Bus Stop – Type C
In-lane bus stops located on the near side
of a multi-lane roundabout. When loading
and unloading passengers in the right lane
of a multi-lane approach, vehicles can use
the left lane to get around the stopped bus.
The bus stop should be located at least 50-
feet away from the pedestrian crossing to
keep sight lines of crossing pedestrians
clear. In addition, locating the bus stop
further from the circulating lanes will
reduce conflicts between buses traveling
through the intersection and vehicles
making right-turns.
Figure 11 illustrates where each of these three
treatment types are proposed along the Bethel
Road corridor. As Kitsap Transit expands,
adjusts, and improves transit in the area, these
design concepts will need to be revisited. When
phases of the project move from conceptual
design into preliminary and final design, further
consultation with Kitsap Transit will be required
to determine the best possible design given the
specific location.
Conceptual rendering of a Type C bus stop treatment
Page 57 of 122
Figure 11: Study Area Map
Page 58 of 122
Pedestrians
Existing pedestrian facilities on both Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are insufficient, especially in light of the
multi-family residential and mixed-use development that is expected to occur within the subarea. Port Orchard
has a commitment to provide facilities that accommodate pedestrians and cyclists in a safe, comfortable, and
accessible way within the arterial street network.
Pedestrian Facility Design
The design of both Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road include sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The design
for Bethel Road includes 8-foot wide sidewalks while Sedgwick Road includes 10-foot sidewalks intended to be
used as needed by cyclists. More details on this treatment are included in the Bicycles section of this chapter.
All sidewalks and ramps at crosswalks must be ADA compliant to safely accommodate users with vision-
impairments and limited mobility. In following design phases, consideration will have to be given to the
treatment at back-of-walk whether there the need for retaining walls, fencing, or a slope easement.
Midblock Crossings
Block length is a critical factor when evaluating walkability. Shorter block lengths, or distances between
crosswalks, increase opportunities for crossing and allow for more direct pedestrian routes. Studies have shown
that ideal block lengths to support walkable area are between 300-feet and 400-feet.10 Crossing opportunities
on both Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road are extremely limited. Distances between major intersections along
Bethel Road are at least 1,000-feet apart, and often much longer.
To support walkability on Bethel Road, midblock crosswalks are recommended between every major
intersection to provide a crossing opportunity at least every 500-feet. Midblock crossings should be located
adjacent to pedestrian generators like transit stops, commercial or residential developments, or other minor
intersections and must meet appropriate sight distance requirements. If a midblock crossing is installed on a
roadway with a center turn lane, such as on Bethel Road north of Lund Avenue, a median refuge island should
be considered.
When installing midblock crossings at uncontrolled locations, without traffic control like a stop sign or signal,
special attention to design is required to ensure the safety of all road users. Figure 12 provides guidance on
installing uncontrolled, midblock crosswalks on roadways with one-lane in each direction. Further guidance on
mid-block crossing siting and design is provided in the City’s Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines.11
10 Ewing, Reid. Pedestrian- and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart Growth. Smart Growth Network Manual, 1999.
11 Fehr & Peers on behalf of The City of Port Orchard. Port Orchard Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines. December 2016.
Page 59 of 122
Figure 12: Midblock Crossing Design Guidance
Bicycles
There are no existing bicycle facilities on either Bethel Road or Sedgwick Road and the community has voiced an
interest in providing access for cyclists on both corridors.
Bicycle Facility Design
The corridor design for both Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road include a 6-foot wide, curb-side bicycle lane. The
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), states conventional bike lanes are appropriate for
streets with greater than 3,000 daily vehicles and speeds between 25mph and 35mph which describes the
conditions on both study corridors.12 Further bicycle facility design guidance can be found in NACTO’s Urban
Bikeway Design Guide (Second Edition).
12 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition. New York: Island Press, 2014. Pages 4-8.
Page 60 of 122
On Sedgwick Road, in addition to the on-street bike lane, the design includes a 10-foot wide sidewalk or shared-
use path on both sides of the roadway. When traveling eastbound on Sedgwick Road from SR 16, there is a
considerable hill which can present a barrier for bicyclists, especially those who are less comfortable riding next
to moving traffic. In addition, Sedgwick Road is forecasted to carry more traffic than Bethel Road with two lanes
in each direction which makes it less bike-friendly. In order to accommodate less experienced riders given these
conditions, the sidewalk on Sedgwick Road is designed to be 10-feet wide, 2-feet wider than on Bethel Road,
which will allow it to function more like a shared-use path. During further design phases, consideration should
be given to the path materials and signage to communicate to pedestrians and bicyclist that this is a shared
space.
Bicycles in Roundabouts
At roundabouts, ramps are provided upon entering and exiting to transition cyclists between the roadway and a
wide sidewalk. Cyclists are given the option to navigate the roundabout the same way a pedestrian would, using
the crosswalks to make their way through the intersection, and reentering the on-street bike lane after the
roundabout. However, more experienced cyclists may choose to merge into the traffic lane and use the
circulating lane of the roundabout.
Bicycles at Bus Stops
Where possible, the City would like to provide bike facilities that wrap around bus stops to ensure that bicyclists
can safely get around buses that are stopped at the curb, blocking the bike lane. NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design
(Second Edition) provides guidance on this treatment.13
The majority of the time, a bus will not be present at the bus stop. For that reason, it is recommended that the
on-street bike lane remain through the bus stop to allow bicyclists to use the bike lane when a bus is not
present. Remaining in the on-street bike lane when it is available will reduce the conflicts between cyclists and
pedestrians.
Figure 13 provides a design concept for the ‘wrap around’ treatment which would only be needed at Type A and
Type B bus stop locations. At Type C locations, bicycle ramps are placed on the approach to the roundabout
before the bus stop. If a ‘wrap around’ treatment is incorporated into the design, it will introduce additional
right-of-way impacts that will need to be considered.
13 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition. New York: Island Press, 2014. Pages 32-33.
Page 61 of 122
Figure 13: Bike Lanes at Bus Stops Design Guidance
Roundabout Design
Whenever possible, single-lane roundabouts are preferred over multi-lane roundabouts. Single-lane
roundabouts have fewer conflict points, use up less right-of-way, and are easier to navigate for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicycles alike. Of all eight roundabouts included in the corridor plan, only Blueberry Road and
Lincoln Avenue/Lundberg Avenue are expected to process the 2040 forecasted volumes as single-lane
roundabouts. A single-lane roundabout was also identified as an interim design for the Salmonberry Road
intersection. All other roundabouts in the corridor plan are designed as multi-lane roundabouts.
All roundabouts in this corridor plan were designed to accommodate WB-67 on the major street and WB-40 on
the side streets. In addition, fire trucks and busses will be able to navigate the roundabouts and stay within a
single lane. Figure 14, which illustrates the full-build design of the Bethel Road and Salmonberry Road
intersection, highlights roundabout design features, some of which apply to both single-lane and multi-lane
roundabouts.
Page 62 of 122
Figure 14: Roundabout Design Guidance
The planned multi-lane roundabouts have been designed to encourage a zipper merge when exiting the
roundabout. When driving through multi-lane roundabouts, vehicles tend to stagger themselves because they
do not like to travel directly next to another vehicle while turning. As a result, they exit the roundabout
staggered and ready to merge. To improve safety, the merge point is purposely located after the pedestrian
crossing but early enough that vehicles will not be back up to full speed. In addition, no indication is provided
that one lane has right-of-way over the other (i.e. no 'merge left' or ‘right lane ends’ signs). Taking this design
approach limits aggressive driving behaviors and encourages better ‘zippering’ upon exiting the roundabout.
Page 63 of 122
Critical Areas
A preliminary review of critical areas within the study area revealed potential wetland and fish habitat impacts
that will require further study in the following design phases. In accordance with Washington’s State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Kitsap County’s Critical Areas Ordinance (COA), detailed analysis of the
potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the planned improvements will be
performed. Any direct impacts to wetlands, steams, or their standard buffers will require a mitigation plan and
related permitting.
The most notable potential wetland impact is located on the northeast corner of Bethel Road and Sedgwick
Road. The construction of a roundabout at this intersection and/or the widening of Sedgwick Road east of
Bethel Road is likely to encroach on a wetland area located between the existing Chevron gas station and Les
Schwab Tire Center.
County-Owned Parcels
Following the County’s Bethel Corridor Study in the early 2000’s, several land parcels were purchased by the
County to accommodate the stormwater retention facilities for the corridor improvement project that was
never realized. Due to the Federal rules surrounding property acquisition, these parcels cannot be bought by the
City for the same purpose unless the previous property owner provides written documentation that they were
fairly compensated at the time of purchase.
In siting stormwater retention ponds, County-owned parcels should be avoided if there is another vacant parcel
that can provide the same function. However, there are right-of-way impacts to County-owned parcels that will
need to be resolved before construction can begin. The City is currently working to resolve these conflicts.
Emergency Response
During the planning process, the project team consulted with Kitsap Fire and Rescue to ensure that the
conceptual design did not inhibit their emergency response operations or negatively impact response times.
Emergency response shared concerns about the raised median. On Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road, the raised
median limits access and could potentially increase response times if emergency vehicles were only able to
make turns at the roundabout intersections. On Bethel Road, which only has one travel lane in each direction,
the raised median also reduces the curb-to-curb width which limits the ability of emergency response vehicles to
pass vehicles on the roadway when necessary.
In response to their concerns, the City has proposed to provide clear areas with a mountable curb at regularly
spaced intervals along the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road medians. These clear areas will be free of
landscaping and wide enough to accommodate U-turns for emergency vehicles. Recommended spacing is
between 400-feet and 500-feet. On Bethel Road, to allow for emergency vehicles to pass stalled or pulled over
vehicles, the City proposes to construct a 1’foot concrete apron with mountable curb around the center median
instead of a typical curb which would widen the effective width of the street to 19.5-feet in each direction.
Emergency vehicles would be able to mount the median and encroach on the landscaped area when necessary.
Speed Limit
The City may consider a speed limit reduction on Bethel Road to better align with the conceptual design which
promotes walkability, bike-ability, and calmer traffic. When a significant portion of the corridor has been
reconstructed, a reduction from the current posted speed of 35 mph to 25 mph may be appropriate. A
Page 64 of 122
pedestrian hit by a car going 35mph is over twice as like to die from the impact when compared to a car going
25 mph.14
Parking
There are advantages and disadvantages to consider when thinking about whether or not to allow on-street,
parallel parking on mixed-use and commercial corridors. When you think of your favorite, walkable downtown
center, chances are it has on-street parking. On-street parking is often considered an asset in downtown
environments because it buffers pedestrians from vehicle traffic, creates a more active street scape, and has a
tendency to calm traffic.
However, there are downsides to on-street parking that must be considered as well. On-street parking can limit
visibility and impact sight-lines at intersection and crossing locations. Bike lanes are often located next to parked
cars which poses a door hazard for bicyclists. Parking lanes increase the amount of impervious surface which
increases stormwater runoff. On constrained corridors, on-street parking also uses valuable right-of-way that
could be allocated to other street scape amenities such as planting
strips, bike lanes, or wider sidewalks. Lastly, parallel, and angled
parking maneuvers on collector streets cause friction between
vehicles which reduces corridor capacity and increases the
opportunity for collisions.
After weighing the pros and cons, the design decision for both
Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road was to not include on-street parking.
Many of the existing and planned developments along both corridors
have off-street, or on-site, parking requirements which are expected
to satisfy the parking needs of residents and visitors.
As residential and mixed-use development occurs in the Bethel/Sedgwick subarea, on-street parking should be
considered for the lower volume side street network, such as Salmonberry Road and Blueberry Road.
Access Management
Except for the section of Bethel Road between Lincoln Avenue and Mile Hill Drive, the long-term plan for both of
the study corridors is to have an uninterrupted, raised median which prohibits left-turn movements except for
at roundabout intersections. In terms of project phasing, corridor segments with a center median will only be
constructed if the segment is book-ended by roundabout intersections to ensure U-turns are possible and that
access to all existing and future properties is maintained.
Going forward, the City wants to take a proactive and coordinated approach to approving access along both of
these development corridors. Any new access request along the corridors will require review and approval from
the City. Driveway consolidation and shared access along property lines is preferred and the following minimum
spacing requirements between access points, driveways or intersections, will be adopted.
On Sedgwick Road, the City will maintain WSDOT’s Class 3 access management designation which requires
minimum spacing of 330-feet between access points. In the event WSDOT changes the access management
14 Tefft, Brian C. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Sever Injury or Death.
Washington DC, 2011.
Over 80% of survey
respondents felt that
there is currently enough
parking available when
visiting businesses on
Bethel Road.
Page 65 of 122
designation of Sedgwick Road, the City will adopt the updated standard. On Bethel Road, the City will implement
a minimum spacing of 200-feet between access points, measured from centerline to centerline of the
intersecting driveway or roadway.
On road segments divided by a raised median, spacing minimums will only apply to access points on the same
side of the road. On road segments with a two-way left-turn lane, spacing minimums will be applied to both
sides of the street meaning off-set intersections or driveways must be meet the minimum spacing requirement.
Deviations from the access spacing standards will require approval by Public Works.
Adjacent Street Connections
A more connected street grid adjacent to Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road will improved the efficiency of both
corridors. Not only will a side street network dispurse traffic – reducing pressure on the arterial – they also
provide important alternative routes in the event of an emergency or construction activity. A more complete
‘street grid’ also increases walkability and bikability by increasing route choice. As development occurs, every
effort should be made to improve and create street connections along and/or within developed parcels. These
connections are illustrated as dashed lines in Appendix C.
Vallair Court Connector
The Vallair Connector was identified as a potential developer-driven project that could relieve pressure at the
access points at SE Vallair Court and SE Bethel Valley Lane which serve two single family home residential
developments and a fast-food restaurant. These access points currently allow full access and create which
creates safety and congestion issues at this busy location on the Bethel Road corridor. As a condition of any
future development which adds vehicle trips to these access points, the impacted access point will be restricted
to right-in/right-out. If necessary, the developer may opt to construct an additional full-access roadway that
connects to the existing controlled intersection which provides access to Walmart on the east side of Bethel
Road.
Bethel/Sedgwick Subarea Connectors
The parcels located north and south of Sedgwick Road between SR 16 and Bethel Road are well-poised for
development, especially given the recent zoning code changes. As development occurs, it will be critical to
construct alternate access and connecting streets to improve circulation and mobility. The City is looking for
opportunities to add, complete, or improve parallel east-west connections north of Sedgwick Road between
Geiger Road and Ramsey Road, north-south connections from Sedgwick Road to Sherman Avenue, and east-
west connections south of Sedgwick Road between Bravo Terrace, Geiger Road, and Bethel Road.
Walmart Connector
Just south of Walmart, there is a large parcel which is likely to developed within the next 20 years. If and when
that happens, a north-south connection between the Walmart site and Salmonberry Road should be constructed
as a part of the site. An additional access on Salmonberry Road has the potential to divert traffic from Bethel
Road and would be especially attractive to people that live or work to the east of the study area.
State Facilities
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will require an Intersection Control Analysis (ICA) to
support the proposed changes to intersections on Sedgwick Road (SR 160). The ICA is a 5-step process meant to
screen and evaluate alternatives to determine the best possible intersection type and design. Based on feedback
Page 66 of 122
from stakeholder coordination meetings, WSDOT would prefer a single ICA for the Sedgwick Road study
segment instead of ICA’s for each of the proposed intersection locations. A combined ICA will be able to speak to
the overall corridor approach and better explain the rationale for relocating intersection control to the
roundabout locations.
Often an ICA is conducted by a private entity and initiated in relation to a specific development proposal.
However, given the State’s preference for a corridor-level ICA, the City may choose to take on the ICA effort
using the analysis done as a part of this corridor study as a solid foundation. A City-initiated ICA will formally
establish the City’s vision for the Sedgwick Road corridor and more effectively guide future development
opportunities.
Landscaping
Landscaping along a corridor does more than just look pretty. Street trees and planting strips improve the
pedestrian experience by providing shade and adding visual interest. Plants also mitigate pollution from vehicle
traffic, improve air quality, and help treat stormwater runoff. And streets trees can visually narrow the roadway,
helping to calm traffic and reinforce speed limits.
All planting areas require maintenance, but some require more than others. In choosing plants and other
landscape materials, every effort should be made to limit maintenance needs by choosing those that are well-
suited for the specific location and environment.
Street trees used in the median should be tolerant of compacted, infertile soils and drought-resistant. For
medians with widths of 12-feet or less, trees that have a mature size of 30-feet or less are preferred. Larger
trees tend to grow slowly due to confinement of the root system which makes them unstable and more likely to
fall or the roots out-grow the space and break the curbs or roadway surface. Trees with columnar branching
patterns are preferred to round branching patterns because they limit the need for pruning and reduce potential
visibility issues. In Washington, good median street species include Amur Maackia, Adirondack Crabapple, Red
Barron Crab Apple, Amanogawa Flowering Cherry, and Red Cascade Mountain Ash.15 Additionally, Mount
Vernon Laurel is a preferred shrub for median islands because it provides a dense groundcover that deters weed
growth.
Plant species used in the landscaping strip along the sidewalk, which also acts a stormwater bioretention swale,
should be tolerant to wet soils and flood conditions. Examples of good bioswale vegetation include the Juncus,
Scirpus, and Carex. A valuable resource for bioswale vegetation is the Department of Ecology’s Rain Garden
Handbook for Western Washington: A Guide for Design, Installation, and Maintenance (2013).
15 City of Seattle, Master Tree List, 2011. <https://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/2011-Master_Tree_List.pdf>
Page 67 of 122
Juncus acuminatus Scirpus microcarpus Carex oshimensis
Utilities
Stormwater
A high-level stormwater analysis was conducted to identify infiltration pond sizing requirements and preliminary
locations. The proposed stormwater improvements were designs according to The City of Port Orchard
Municipal Code Section 20.150 (POMC). Port Orchard has adopted the Washington State Department of Ecology
Stormwater Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and the Puget Sound Partnership Low Impact
Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
The stormwater facilities are designed to treat, store, and discharge stormwater associated with the proposed
roadway improvements. The facilities were sized to handle only the runoff associated with the improved
roadways surfaces. The proposed ponds are not regional facilities designed to handle development outside of
the right-of-way. As per Port Orchard development codes, development sites are required to provide their own
site-specific stormwater facilities.
The stormwater concept design, on both Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road, consists of 6-foot wide biorientation
swales on either side of the roadway, between the curb and the sidewalk. Curb cuts are located every 30 feet to
allow runoff to enter the bioretention swale. Collected stormwater will be treated as it infiltrates the bioswale
and conveyed by pipes and catch basins to a series of six (6) infiltration ponds. All the infiltration ponds, except
for one, are planned to discharge into Blackjack Creek. The single pond that does not have direct access to
Blackjack Creek is assumed to have 100% infiltration.
North of Lincoln Road on the east side of Bethel Road, there is a stormwater facility that is known to be failing.
When that phase of the project is advanced, alternatives should be considered to decommission the existing
drainage line and develop a drainage conveyance concept that will handle the bypass stormwater flow.
Details about the stormwater concept plan and the analysis can be found in Appendix F.
Electrical and Telecommunications
The City of Port Orchard, as stated in the municipal code, has a long-range goal that all electrical and
telecommunication distribution lines shall be underground, with only transformers, switchgear splice pedestals
and similar facilities extending above ground. A preliminary review of the corridor indicates that undergrounding
is feasible according to the Schedule 74 cost-sharing agreement, however further analysis will be required to
determine the estimated costs.
Page 68 of 122
Puget Sound Energy (PSE) and West Sound Utility District (WSUD) were consulted during the study to get initial
feedback on the conceptual design. PSE staff identified one utility pole located on the west side of Bethel Road
just north of Salmonberry Road that would be difficult to relocate or underground because of the amount of
fiber optic communication lines located on the pole.
As the project moves from preliminary design into final design and construction, two factors will have significant
cost implications in relation to utility relocation and undergrounding:
♦ During preliminary design, the survey will determine if existing utility infrastructure is located on
easements outside of the right-of-way or within the right-of-way under a franchise agreement. Utilities
that are currently in easement that are anticipated to be acquired as right-of-way will pose the biggest
challenges. New easements required for utility relocations along with temporary construction
easements need to be determined prior to the right of way acquisition process.
♦ During final design, careful planning must be given to the staging of construction activities to limit the
number of temporary relocations of utilities which is a cost that they City would be responsible for under
the City’s current Schedule 74 Agreement.
Illumination
Illumination is an important feature for every street. Not only does it provide for safer conditions for all road
users, street lights with can help to create a sense of place and define the character of a particular area or
district.
On Sedgwick Road (SR 160), as a state facility, the illumination will be installed per WSDOT standards. On Bethel
Road, the City will explore the feasibility of installing street lights that are aligned with the desired street
character. For instance, they may be heights more appropriate to the scale of the street, they may
accommodate banners, or they may provide illumination for the sidewalk in addition to the street. The City will
also explore opportunities for seamless integration of small cell antennae into street light design.
Street lights along both corridors are to be located in the bioretention area or landscaped buffer between the
roadway and the sidewalk. Spacing will be consistent with existing conditions with adequate illumination at
every marked crosswalk.
Page 69 of 122
Costs & Funding
Cost Estimates
Planning-level cost estimates were developed for each of the project phases. The estimates included the
following line items:
♦ Construction Cost (including 25% contingency)
♦ Utility Relocation/Undergrounding (2% of total construction cost)
♦ Preliminary Engineering (10% of total construction cost)
♦ Construction Engineering (15% of total construction cost)
♦ Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost (including 10% contingency)
Table 5 summarizes the preliminary cost estimate by phase. Detailed cost estimates, including all assumptions,
are provided in Appendix G.
Table 5: Preliminary Cost Estimates by Project Phase
Project Phase Estimated Cost
(2018 Dollars)
Phase 1: Bethel Road – Salmonberry Rd to Blueberry Rd $12,020,000
Phase 2: Sedgwick Road – SR 16 NB Ramps to Bethel Rd $16,670,000
Phase 3: Bethel Rd – Blueberry Rd to Sedgwick Rd $5,820,000
Phase 4: Bethel Rd – Lund Ave to Salmonberry Rd $8,750,000
Phase 5: Bethel Road – Mile Hill Dr to Lund Ave $10,540,000
Total Project Cost $53,790,000
Funding Opportunities
We anticipate that the projects identified in this plan will be funded through a combination of City, State, and
development-driven funding mechanisms. Phase 2 and Phase 3 are both located on a state facility, SR 160, and
therefore it is expected that some amount of cost sharing will be involved. A few of the potential funding
mechanisms are described below.
Local Funding Mechanisms
The City of Port Orchard has established a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) system for collecting impact fees from
developers based on the estimated traffic generation of the development activity. The City’s impact fee is
calculated based on an impact fee study that establishes which transportation projects are needed to support
growth and determines what percent of each project cost is needed to support growth versus to correct existing
deficiencies. Impact fees collected can be applied to cover the share of costs related to growth for projects
included in the City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) list which is updated annually.
Page 70 of 122
Grant Opportunities
There are a number of grant opportunities which would be applicable to the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road
corridor projects. Depending on the grant program, they can be administrated on the federal, state, or regional
level. Kitsap County is unique in that it is represented by both the Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning
Organization (PRTPO) and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) but the City of Port Orchard works most closely
with PSRC. Brief descriptions of potential grant opportunities are included below.
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD)
Administered by the US Department of Transportation (DOT), the BUILD grants replace the pre-existing
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program. BUILD is a highly-competitive
grant program that supports multi-modal, rail, road, transit and port projects that have a significant local or
regional impact. Funding is available for both planning projects and capital projects. In contrast to other federal-
aid programs, funds can be provided directly to any public entity, including municipalities. Projects are evaluated
based on merit criteria related to safety, economic competitiveness, quality of life, environmental protection,
state of good repair, innovation, partnership, and additional non-Federal revenue for future transportation
infrastructure investments.
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)
Administered by the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), STBG is the most flexible of the federal-aid
programs provided through the Fixing America’s Surface Transpiration (FAST) Act. STBG funds can be applied to
almost any transportation related planning, design or construction project. PSRC oversees the allocation of STBG
funds to local jurisdictions.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
HSIP provides funding for projects that aim to reduce serious traffic injuries and deaths, consistent with
Washington’s Target Zero: Strategic Highway Safety Plan. WSDOT administers the program and makes a call for
projects every two years. HSIP funding can be applied to design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction
phases of eligible projects. Eligible projects include corridor or intersection improvements that use engineering
countermeasures to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes, such as the construction of roundabouts and raised
medians which are recommended on both Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road.
WSDOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Washington’s STIP is a fiscally constrained plan that represents the highest priority transportation projects
across local, regional, and state levels. Only projects on the STIP are authorized to access federal funds through
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). To be incorporated into the STIP, projects must first be identified
in the City’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as well as PSRC’s Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP). Projects are then forwarded to WSDOT using a web-based system for consultation and possible
inclusion in the STIP, which is updated annually. Projects on the STIP usually have regional significance such as
the Sedgwick Road widening (Phase 2).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
WSDOT administers the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program which provides grants for projects that that reduce
collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists and increase walking and biking activity. Funding is can be used for
construction as well as for design-only projects that lead to construction-ready pedestrian and bicycle
improvement projects.
Page 71 of 122
Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
WSDOT also oversees a competitive grant program to fund projects that increase the number of students
walking and biking to school safely. SRTS funds can be used for infrastructure improvements located within two
miles of a school and all public agencies responsible for administering local transportation safety programs are
eligible to apply. The segment of Bethel Road north of Lund Avenue (Phase 5) may be a good candidate for this
grant program due to its proximity to East Port Orchard Elementary School and the scope of work which is
largely adding bike lanes, sidewalks, and a bioswale to the existing roadway profile.
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grants
There are two TIB grant pools available to cities like Port Orchard with populations of 5,000 or greater. The
Sidewalk Program (SP) supports transportation projects (not recreation) on a federally classified roadway to
improve pedestrian safety, access, connectivity, and address system continuity. Funds can only be applied to
sidewalk construction tasks. The Urban Arterial Program (UAP) supports roadway construction projects that
score well in one of four bands: safety, growth and development, physical condition, or mobility. All projects
must also be rated in sustainability and constructability categories.
Page 72 of 122
Appendices
A) Community Survey Results Summary
B) Traffic Operations Analysis Memo
C) Conceptual Corridor Design Roll Plots
D) Draft Right-of-Way Plans
E) Sensitivity Analysis Results
F) Stormwater and Drainage Technical Memo
G) Preliminary Cost Estimates
Page 73 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 74 of 122
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7A Meeting Date: August 14, 2018
Subject: Discussion: Bethel Road and Sedgwick Prepared by: Nicholas Bond, AICP
Road Corridor Plan DCD Director
Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Issue: Under item 5B of the Council agenda, Council viewed a presentation of the Bethel and Sedgwick
Corridor Plan. The administration has scheduled a public hearing date on the draft plan for September 25,
2018 at the regular City Council meeting. Written comments on the draft plan will be due by 4:30 P.M. on
September 25th, 2018, although oral and written comments will be accepted during the public hearing on the
evening of September 25th, 2018. The City Council should discuss the draft plan and provide guidance to the
Mayor and staff concerning next steps and any desired revisions.
Depending on the scope and nature of the public comments and based on City Council input, the plan may be
revised prior to being finalized for City Council acceptance. The City Council will be asked to accept the final
draft of the plan by resolution at a regular council meeting prior to the end of 2018. Adoption of the Corridor
Plan will require a comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with POMC Title 20.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Policy TR-2 Implement necessary transportation improvements as
development in the City occurs, consistent with the City’s Concurrency policies and SEPA requirements.
Policy TR-4 Prioritize transportation improvements, including non-motorized transportation and
mass transit facilities, within designated centers of local importance.
Policy TR-73 Plan, design, and implement roadway widening and intersection improvements
needed to provide additional capacity, and resolve potential operations and safety issues. Ensure that
designs address non-motorized travel within and to/from the City.
Policy TR-94 Promote creation of coordinated corridor development plans for Tremont Street,
Bay Street/Beach Drive (SR-166), Sedgwick Road (SR-160) and Mile Hill Drive/SR-166.
Policy TR-95 Promote application and development of a Bethel Road Corridor Development Plan
for Bethel Road SE extending from Beach Drive (SR 166) to the State Route 16 overpass.
Goal 23 Require implementation of the Bethel Road Corridor Development Plan.
Policy TR-100 Promote separated bicycle lanes, separated sidewalks, and Access Management
Plans as proposed in the Bethel Road Corridor Plan.
Page 75 of 122
Policy TR-101 Seek funding for widening and improvements along Bethel Avenue.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council provide guidance to staff and consultants
regarding any needed revisions to the draft Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan.
Motion for consideration: None required.
Fiscal Impact: N/A.
Alternatives: Do not provide guidance to staff and consultants on the draft Plan.
Attachments: Draft Corridor Plan provided under agenda item 5B.
Page 76 of 122
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No. Business Item 7B Meeting Date: August 14, 2018
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution, Approving the Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC
Collection of Funds for the 2018 Chimes & City Clerk
Lights Tree Decorating Contest Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: In celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Festival of Chimes & Lights event, the Festival &
Chimes and Lights committee created a new event downtown: Bay Street Tree Decorating Contest.
Applicants will pick a planter along Bay Street, pay an adoption fee of $50 to the City; which goes directly
towards purchasing of the trees, and decorate their fresh tree. There are 58 planters available.
The applicants will start decorating their tree on November 12th and must be finished by November 20th
for Santa to judge. Winners will be announced during the Festival Chimes and Lights event on December
1st.
Because staff doesn’t have the authority to collect this adoption fee, a resolution must be established
and adopted by the Council for staff to collect. Staff has prepared the resolution for consideration.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: None.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of a resolution allowing the City to collect funds for the
2018 Chimes & Lights tree decorating contest.
Motion for Consideration: I move to adopt a resolution allowing the City to collect funds for the 2018
Chimes & Lights tree decorating contest.
Fiscal Impact: Each participate will pay a $50 adoption fee. All the funds will go directly to the tree
decorating contest by purchasing the trees.
Alternatives: None.
Attachments: Resolution, application, and Flyer.
Page 77 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 78 of 122
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON TO ALLOW THE
CITY TO COLLECT FUNDS FOR THE 2018 TREE DECORATING CONTEST AS PART
OF THE 20th ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHIMES AND LIGHTS EVENT.
WHEREAS, this year is the 20th anniversary of the Festival of Chimes & Lights and the
Festival of Chimes and Lights committee would like to hold a new event downtown: Bay Street
Tree Decorating Contest; and
WHEREAS, applicant will pick a planter along Bay Street and decorate their fresh tree.
There are 58 planters available.
WHEREAS, the committee agreed that applicants would pay to the City an adoption fee
of $50 to enter in the contest, and the money would go directly to the tree decorating contest,
and
WHEREAS, the Finance Department recommended that a resolution be brought before
the Council as all fees and charges collected by the City need to be established through an
ordinance or resolution; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
THAT: The City of Port Orchard can collect an adoption fee of $50 for the Bay
Street Tree Decorating Contest with the understanding that the money will be
for purchasing of the trees and the City will not be keeping any of the funds.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this 14th day of August 2018.
Rob Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk
Page 79 of 122
THE 2018
FESTIVAL
OF CHIMES
& LIGHTS
Cost of $50.00 must
be submitted with
application
First come, first
served application
process
City will set up tree
in Bay Street planter
Have fun decorating
the tree!
Prizes and
recognition for
participants
City recycles tree at
end of season
Good luck!
Bay Street
Tree Decorating Contest
To help celebrate the
20th Anniversary of
the Festival of Chimes & Lights,
we invite you to enter in the very first
downtown fresh tree decorating contest
to be judged by SANTA!
Cost to adopt a tree: $50.00
The winner will be announced
during the Festival of Chimes & Lights
on Saturday, December 1, 2018, at
5:15pm.
Contest Application & Guidelines at:
https://www.cityofportorchard.us/festival-of
-chimes-and-lights/
The City of Port Orchard
Festival of Chimes & Lights Committee
Call (360) 876-4407 with any questions.
Page 80 of 122
Tree Decorating Contest
Bay Street Planter Locations
P - Planter has access to power
NP - Planter does not have access to power
HV - Planter has high visibility
(Waterside)
Page 81 of 122
Festival of Chimes & Lights
Tree Decorating Contest
Celebrating our 20th Anniversary…
“O Christmas Tree”
2018 Tree Decorating Contest Guidelines & Application
First come, first served process – August 3rd start date www.cityofportorchard.us
$50.00 (payable to COPO, City of Port Orchard) must be submitted with application
Once application and payment are received, applicant may choose a tree location
The City of Port Orchard will place trees in Bay Street planters November 5-9th
The City will provide a sign designating sponsorship after tree placement
Applicant provides decorations with decorating taking place November 12-20th
Santa judges trees Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Winners to be announced at the Festival of Chimes & Lights, December 1st @ 5:15 pm
Ad recognition will be given to participants
Prizes will be given to the winners in the following categories:
Most Traditional, Most Sensational & Best Northwest Regional Flavor
Decorations to be removed by January 2, 2019
The City will remove and recycle trees at the end of the season
No vulgar, offensive or inappropriate decorations allowed
Power is supplied to most planter locations – see flyer for details
Application Entry Form
Applicant’s Name: ____________________________________________________________
Business Name: _____________________________________Planter Location No. _______
Phone Number: _____________________ Email: __________________________________
To be completed by City of Port Orchard Staff, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Date & Amount received ________________ $ _____________ Receipt No. ____________
Page 82 of 122
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7C Meeting Date: August 14, 2018
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution, Adopting the Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP
Final Plat of Dunmore Plat (McCormick DCD Director
Woods Phase III) Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: The site is identified as a portion of the McCormick Woods Phase III Preliminary Plat known as Parcel
E - Dunmore and was granted approval with conditions by the Kitsap County Hearing Examiner on June 20,
1990. A Final Environmental Impact Statement for the McCormick Woods Planned Residential Development
was issued on August 30, 1985, and subsequently adopted by Kitsap County as part of the approval of
McCormick Woods, Phase III Preliminary Plat approval on June 20, 1990. The Dunmore Plat subdivision creates
54 single-family residential lots and five tracts. The applicant has installed or bonded for roadway illumination,
roads, sidewalks, landscaping, water and sewer, and storm drainage improvements. Streets within this final
plat are for public use and will be accepted into the City’s road system.
Recommendation: Adoption of a resolution, granting approval of the final plat of Dunmore Plat.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Not applicable.
Motion for consideration: I move to adopt a resolution, as presented, granting final plat approval for Dunmore
Plat.
Fiscal Impact: Income from building permit fees, ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure.
Alternatives: Approval with added conditions.
Attachments: Resolution, Plat map, DCD Approval Letter, PW Approval Letter, SKFR Approval Letter, and Bill
of Sale.
Page 83 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 84 of 122
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, GRANTING FINAL
PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 54-LOT AND FIVE-TRACT PLAT KNOWN AS DUNMORE PLAT.
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1985, the Kitsap County Hearing Examiner approved the
Preliminary Plat/Planned Unit Development known as McCormick Woods Preliminary Plat/PUD
Phase I; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1990, the Kitsap County Hearing Examiner approved the
Preliminary Plat known as McCormick Woods Phase III; and
WHEREAS, on August 30, 1985, Kitsap County issued a Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the McCormick Woods Phase III Development and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2018 an application was submitted for the final plat of Parcel E of
the McCormick Woods Phase III preliminary plat, now named Dunmore Plat, for the subdivision
of 54 lots, five tracts, and public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has determined that the proposed means of
sewage disposal and water supply are adequate and recommends approval of the final plat;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends approval of the final plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Community Development Director recommends approval of the final
plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Parcel E of the McCormick Woods Phase III plat,
now named Dunmore Plat, conforms to all terms and conditions of the preliminary plat
approval and that said subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW and other
applicable state laws and local ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that Dunmore Plat conforms to the applicable zoning
requirements and Port Orchard’s Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
THAT: The Port Orchard City Council approves the final plat for Dunmore
Plat, as illustrated and as legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto;
and
Page 85 of 122
FURTHER THAT: The Dunmore Plat subdivision shall be governed by the
terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and
regulations in effect at the time of approval for a period of five years
after final plat approval unless the City Council finds that a change in
conditions has created a serious threat to the public health or safety in
the subdivision.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested
by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 14th day of August, 2018.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk
Page 86 of 122
Page 87 of 122
Page 88 of 122
Page 89 of 122
Page 90 of 122
Page 91 of 122
Page 92 of 122
Page 93 of 122
City Council August 6, 2018
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard WA 98366
RE: Recommendation of Approval of Final Plat for McCormick Woods Parcel E
Dear City Council:
In accordance with RCW 58.17.150(2), I hereby state that I have reviewed the subdivision
documents for conformance to applicable land use regulations and to the conditions in the Kitsap
County Hearing Examiner decision and conditions. The subdivision complies with all terms and
conditions of the approved preliminary plat that are within the authority of South Kitsap Fire and
Rescue. I therefore recommend approval of the final plat.
Sincerely,
Brad Wiggins
Deputy Fire Marshal
South Kitsap Fire and Rescue
Page 94 of 122
Page 95 of 122
Page 96 of 122
Page 97 of 122
Page 98 of 122
Page 99 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 100 of 122
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
____
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7D Meeting Date: August 14, 2018
Subject: Approval of Change Order No. 1 to Prepared by: Mark Dorsey, P.E.
Contract No. 038-17 with HDR Engineering Public Works Director
Inc. for the 2017-2018 Well No. 9 Water Atty Routing No.: N/A
Quality Retrofit - Engineering Support Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: On June 27, 2017, the Port Orchard City Council approved Contract No. C038-17 with HDR
Engineering, Inc. for the 2017-2018 Well No. 9 Water Quality Retrofit Construction Phase – Construction
Engineering Support in an amount not to exceed $18,100.00. During the original scope and budget
negotiations with HDR, the City’s Public Works Department intentionally minimized the engineering
support scope and budget, with the understanding that City Staff would be able to manage the technical
review of the numerous system components. In hindsight, the submittal review and approval process of
the systems associated with this water quality retrofit project requires the expertise of the engineer of
record. Change Order 1 (see attached) requests an additional $25,600.00.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Project 5 – Chapter 7: Utilities.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute Change Order
No. 1 to Contract No. C038-17 with the HDR Engineering, in an amount not to exceed $25,600.00,
bringing the new Contract Total to $43,700.00.
Motion for Consideration: I move to authorize the Mayor to execute Change Order No. 1 to Contract No.
C038-17 with the HDR Engineering, in an amount not to exceed $25,600.00, bringing the new Contract
Total to $43,700.00.
Fiscal Impact: $1.6M was allocated within the approved 2017-2018 Budget for this Project. On April 10,
2018, the City awarded $1,838,252.30 to JMG Constructors via Budget Amendment. The additional
engineering support and City staff time will need to be captured within the end of year Budget
Amendment of Fund 304.
Alternatives: None.
Attachments: Change Order No. 1 and HDR Engineering, Inc. Amendment No. 1.
Page 101 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 102 of 122
Page 103 of 122
Page 104 of 122
Page 105 of 122
Page 106 of 122
City of Port Orchard
Council Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting of July 24, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Putaansuu called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
Roll call was taken by the City Clerk as follows:
Councilmember Ashby Present
Councilmember Chang Present
Councilmember Clauson Present
Councilmember Cucciardi Absent
Mayor Pro-Tem Diener Present
Councilmember Lucarelli Present
Councilmember Rosapepe Present
Mayor Putaansuu Present
Staff present: Assistant City Engineer Mike Pleasants, Finance Director Crocker, City Attorney Cates,
City Clerk Rinearson, and Deputy City Clerk Floyd were also present.
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Putaansuu led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Diener, to add to the Consent
Agenda the excusal of Councilmember Shawn Cucciardi.
The motion carried.
MOTION: By Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Lucarelli, to pull items C and D
from Consent and add them to Business Items E and F.
The motion carried.
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Ashby, to approve the agenda
as amended.
The motion carried.
3. CITIZENS COMMENTS
There were no citizen comments.
Page 107 of 122
4. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Check Nos. 74779 through 74846 totaling $729,382.53; and Bi-Weekly Payroll
including Check Nos. 147986 through 148008 totaling 709,632.05.
B. Approval of the July 10, 2018, Council Meeting Minutes
C. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Mayoral Appointments to the Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee (Rinearson)
D. Approval of a Lease with Dawn Jake, 420 Cline Ave LLC, for Rights-of-Way Adjacent to 420
Cline Avenue for Additional Parking (Rinearson)
E. Approval of an Amended Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County Regarding Beneficial Use
of the City’s Regional Decant Facility
F. Approval of Change Order No. 5 to Contract No. 021-17 with Transpo Group USA, Inc. for the
2017-2018 Anderson Hill/Old Clifton Road Roundabout 100% PS&E
G. Added Item: Excusal of Councilmember Cucciardi
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Chang, to approve the consent
agenda as amended.
The motion carried.
5. PRESENTATION
No presentations were held.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
No public hearings were held.
At 6:37 p.m., Mayor Putaansuu recessed the meeting for a 10-minute executive session to discuss a
potential litigation matter pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). City Attorney Cates, Assistant Engineer
Pleasants, and Finance Director Crocker were invited to attend.
At 6:47 p.m., Mayor Putaansuu extended the executive session an additional 5 minutes.
At 6:52 p.m., Mayor Putaansuu reconvened Council back into regular session.
7. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Contract with RH2 Engineering, Inc. for the Marina Pump
Station Rebuild Project and Documenting Procurement Procedures
MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Clauson, with the
understanding that Contract Execution will not occur until the funding has been secured, I move to
adopt Resolution No. 034-18, thereby approving Contract No. C054-18 with RH2 Engineering, Inc.
Page 108 of 122
for the Marina Pump Station Rebuild Project (30% Design & Permit Coordination) in an amount not
to exceed $250,000.00 and documenting the Professional Services procurement procedures.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No. 034-18)
B. Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the TIB 2018 Urban Arterial Program Funding Application
for the SW Old Clifton Road/Anderson Hill Road SW Intersection Project
MOTION: By Councilmember Rosapepe, seconded by Councilmember Ashby, to adopt Resolution
No. 032-18, thereby supporting the 2018 Urban Arterial Program (UAP) Funding Application for the
SW Old Clifton Road/ Anderson Hill Road SW Intersection Project, as a requirement obtain grant
funding for a fully funded project phase.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No. 032-18)
C. Approval of Change Orders No. 4, 5, and 6 to Contract No. 037-17 with Active Construction,
Inc. for the Tremont Street Widening Project
MOTION: By Councilmember Clauson, seconded by Councilmember Diener, to authorize the Mayor
to execute Change Orders No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 with Active Construction, Inc. with the total amount
of $163,209.04 added to the current contract amount.
D. Discussion of 2018 Paving Options
Mayor Putaansuu noted staff has been discussing different locations throughout the City to be paved
and provided a brief background for each of those locations. The recommendation is to use 2018
dollars to go and design and prepare bid specs; however, that process will take us beyond the paving
window this year. We looked at other projects through the pavement management system but due
to current projects it may not be a good idea. We are still going do our grind-outs and patches
throughout the City, but as far as a complete overlay, we do not have a good project to bring forward.
How do we want to use the money this year? We could use the money to pave Sedgwick and Sidney,
but this needs to be procured first.
Council, Mayor, and staff discussed current and proposed projects in the City and dollar amounts;
public works staff time, consultants, and in-house work; stormwater; ADA compliance; open
Engineering position; sidewalk ramps; complete streets; and procurement of a design for paving
Sedgwick and Sidney.
Council Direction: Use the pavement management tool for Sedgwick and Sidney along with various
other paving projects and provide Council a list of what is being considered.
Page 109 of 122
E. Adoption of a Resolution Approving Mayoral Appointments to the Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee
MOTION: By Councilmember Ashby, seconded by Councilmember Lucarelli, to adopt a resolution
approving the Mayor’s appointment of a representative from the Days Inn and Mrs. Howe’s Bed and
Breakfast as businesses required to collect the tax; and the Port of Bremerton and The Saints Car
Club as organizations involved in activities; to serve on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and to
confirm the appointment of Councilmember Rosapepe as Chair of the committee.
In response to Councilmember Chang, Mayor Putaansuu said the reason he selected these
representatives is he wanted to ask organizations who have not served on the committee in a long
time.
The motion carried.
(Resolution No 035-18)
F. Approval of a Lease with Dawn Jake, 420 Cline Ave LLC, for Rights-of-Way Adjacent to 420 Cline
Avenue for Additional Parking
MOTION: By Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Diener, to approve the lease
agreement with 420 Cline Ave, LLC for leasing public rights-of-way adjacent to 420 Cline Avenue as
described in the lease agreement presented.
Mayor Putaansuu provided a brief history of this location.
In response to Councilmember Chang, City Clerk Rinearson noted this lease is for six parking spots
and there are several other similar leases in the downtown area.
The motion carried.
(Contract No. 055-18)
8. REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES
Councilmember Clauson and Finance Director Crocker reported on the July 24th Finance Committee
meeting.
Councilmember Ashby reported the Economic Development and Tourism committee is scheduled to
meet the second Monday in September.
Mayor Putaansuu reported the sustainable cinema film “Bag It’ is scheduled for July 26th.
Councilmember Lucarelli reported the Utilities Committee meeting is scheduled to meet September
17th. The Sewer Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet August 15th. She also provided information
on the tree decorating contest for the Festival of Chimes & Lights.
Page 110 of 122
Councilmember Diener reported the Land Use Committee is scheduled to meet August 6th.
Mayor Putaansuu reported on the last Kitsap Transit meeting and the July 24th Housing Kitsap
meeting.
Councilmember Ashby reported on the last TransPOL meeting.
9. REPORT OF MAYOR
Mayor Putaansuu reported on the following:
• KEDA video update;
• Engineering position;
• Received Municipal Leadership certificate; and
• Branded vehicles with Port Orchard wayfinding logo.
10. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS
Finance Director Crocker reported on a grant used to hire an intern with his department.
City Clerk Rinearson reported on website and social media updates.
11. CITIZENS COMMENTS
Gerry Harmon thinks it would be a good idea for the City to monitor on social media what people
say when they talk about our City.
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION
An executive session was held earlier in the meeting.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. No other action was taken. Audio/Visual was successful.
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
Page 111 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 112 of 122
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No. Business Item 7F Meeting Date: August 14, 2018
Subject: Discussion: 6 Year Street Paving Plan Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC
City Clerk
Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: During the July 24, 2018, Council meeting, Mayor, Council, and staff discussed 2018 paving
options, noting there are several locations throughout the City which need to be addressed. The City will
still move forward with grind-outs and patches, but there is no project to bring forward for a complete
overlay.
After discussions, it was recommended to use the Pavement Management tool for work on Sedgwick
and Sidney along with various other projects, and to bring back to Council a list of what is being
considered.
Additionally, Mayor Putaansuu has provided a 6 Year Stormwater Improvement Plan for discussion.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Alternatives: Do not discuss.
Attachments: 6 Year Street Paving Plan memo and map; Echo Court pictures; and 6 Year Stormwater
Improvement plan memo.
Page 113 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 114 of 122
TO: City Council
FROM: Rob Putaansuu, Mayor
DATE: August 1, 2018
RE: 6 Year Street Paving Plan
2018
Echo Ct – Paving
ADA shoulder improvements on Bethel, bus stop at Michell south to Walgreens
Sidney south from Sedgwick to City limits - Design & Ad ready specs for 2019 paving
Pottery south from Sunset Ln to Clay Street - Design & Ad ready specs for 2019 stormwater
improvements, 300’ of waterline replacement, sidewalk & half street paving
2019
Sidney south from Sedgwick to City limits – Paving
Pottery south from Sunset Ln to Clay Street – Construction of stormwater improvements, 300’ of
waterline replacement, sidewalk & half street paving
Harrison Street north side at Dekalb Street – ADA compliant sidewalk
Cline Street & Kitsap Street – ADA ramps at intersection & pave west half of Cline Street
Page 115 of 122
2020
West Lippert Drive – Paving & ADA ramps
Smith Street & Cline Ave – ADA ramps on four corners, repair depression in street & pave
intersection
Guy Wetzel Street – Design stormwater & street grade improvements
2021
Guy Wetzel Street – Stormwater, street grade improvements & paving
Tacoma Ave south from Sroufe to Melcher – Paving & ADA improvements
Pottery Ave south from Lippert Drive to Berry Lake Rd – Paving & ADA improvements
2022
Hull Street – Division to Taylor
Old Clifton Road from Anderson Hill roundabout to McCormick Woods Drive – Paving – This
improvement may happen sooner by development agreement
2023
Sidney Ave south from West Lippert Drive to Fireweed Street – Paving with gravel east shoulder if no
progress has been made on stormwater improvements
Page 116 of 122
Legend
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
·
SW OLD CLIFTON RD POTTERY AVE
LIPPERT DR W
SIDNEY AVE
POTTERY AVE BETHEL AVE
GUY WETZEL
TACOMA AVE
SMITH ST/ CLINE AVE
HARRISON ST/DEKALB ST
CLINE ST
HULL AVE
6 YEAR STREET PAVING PLAN
ECHO CT
SIDNEY AVE
Page 117 of 122
TO: City Council
FROM: Rob Putaansuu, Mayor
DATE: August 2, 2018
RE: 6 Year Stormwater Improvement Plan
2018
Annapolis Creek Culvert Replacement – 30% Design
Pottery south from Sunset Ln to Clay Street – Design for 2019 street project
2019
Pottery south from Sunset Ln to Clay Street – Part of a complete street project
Design waterfront outfall retrofits in coordination with Marina lift station rebuild
2020
Design Guy Wetzel Street stormwater improvements
Sidney South stormwater study and 30% design
Retrofit stormwater outfalls on waterfront in coordination with Marina lift station rebuild
2021
Build stormwater improvements for Guy Wetzel Street
Property acquisition for Sidney South stormwater facilities
Page 118 of 122
Replace Annapolis Creek culvert in coordination with Bay Street Path
2022
Sidney South 100% design
2023
Sidney Ave & Cline Street retrofit design
Bethel Roundabout to KFC Stormwater Improvements & ADA Sidewalk
Page 119 of 122
Page 120 of 122
Page 121 of 122
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 122 of 122