Loading...
10/09/2018 - Regular - Packet City of Port Orchard Council Meeting Agenda October 9, 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 September 18, 2018, Council Work Study Session Minutes Page 3 C. Excusal of Councilmember Cucciardi Due to a Business Obligation 5. PRESENTATION 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending POMC Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 Concerning Permit Processing and the Vacation and Alteration of Final Plats (Bond) Page 5 B. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing a Civil Engineer I Position (Howard) Page 39 C. Adoption of a Resolution to Accept the 2017-2018 Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Conceptual Corridor Study Draft Plan (Bond) Page 51 D. Approval of the September 25, 2018, Council Meeting Minutes Page 145 E. Discussion: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s Recommendation for 2019 Funding Allocation (Rinearson) Page 151 F. Discussion: KEDA ‘Destination Port Orchard’ Video (Mayor) 8. REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES 9. REPORT OF MAYOR 10. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS 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: Utility Manager 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. October 9, 2018, Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 2 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 October 16, 2018; 4:00pm City Hall Economic Development and Tourism October 8, 2018; 9:30am City Hall Utilities October 15, 2018; 9:30am City Hall Sewer Advisory October 10, 2018; 6:30pm City Hall Land Use TBD, 2018; 9:30am DCD* Lodging Tax Advisory TBD, 2018; 6:00pm City Hall Festival of Chimes & Lights October 15, 2018; 3:30pm City Hall Outside Agency Committees Varies Varies *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 September 18, 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: Community Development Director Bond, City Attorney Cates, 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. Vision 2050-Update to the Regional Growth Strategy Community Development Director Bond expressed the impacts and involvement of Port Orchard with the Vision 2050 Update to the Regional Growth Strategy. Councilmembers, mayor and staff discussed annexations, population increases, Urban Growth Area, and effect to the community, with emphasis on infrastructure needed to accommodate the growth. Council Direction: No direction was given to staff. OTHER ITEMS DISCUSSED: Mayor Putaansuu informed council that a survey for the Plastic Bag Ban was placed on the City’s website, per Economic Development and Tourism Committee’s (EDT) request. The survey will run for four weeks until the next EDT Committee meeting. The survey does request name and address, which is being verified. The information will be processed after the survey is completed. Page 3 of 154 Minutes of September 18, 2018 Page 2 of 2 2. Small Cell Ordinance Update Community Development Director Bond explained the background efforts on refining the Small Cell Ordinance for a franchise agreement versus a permit process, with researching what other various jurisdictions had implemented and to figure out what would be the best method for the City to move forward. City Attorney Cates explained that the franchise agreement ordinance process would allow the City to be more flexible with addressing future technology changes. Staff will continue to work with the industry to make sure whichever process is determined still fits the plan. Councilmembers, mayor and staff asked how other jurisdictions are processing small cells, the process for future removal, and handling expired permits. Council Direction: Staff is to move forward with permit process and present the Small Cells Ordinance to council at a future meeting for consideration. 3. Zoning Code Updates Department of Community Development Director Bond explained this item is being presented as a “check-in” with Council regarding the Zoning Code Updates, as created by the Planning Commission and Department of Community Development. He urged the Council to review the materials presented and provide any feedback/comments to staff. Positive responses from members of the development community, not much public testimony. Next steps to move forward; bring to Planning Commission to review changes, public hearing at November 5th Planning Commission meeting, and bringing to the Work Study in November, and adopt at the end of November or beginning of December. Councilmembers discussed revisions and suggestions to the updates provided. Department of Community Development Director Bond explained a few of the changes are to focus on sites suitable for big box retail, reshaping the corridors, and transfer of development rights. Many of the updates are mirroring the County’s Zoning Code. Council Direction: Staff was directed to make suggested revisions, then proceed with the work plan and timeline established in the approved public participation program. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. No other action was taken. Audio/Visual was successful. Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk Robert Putaansuu, Mayor Page 4 of 154 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: October 9, 2018 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending POMC Prepared by: Nicholas Bond, AICP Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 Concerning DCD Director Permit Processing and the Vacation and Atty Routing No.: 072-18 Alteration of Final Plats Atty Review Date: August 14, 2018 Issue: City staff have become aware of inconsistencies and conflicts between Chapter 20.22 (Permit Process Types), Chapter 20.94 (Binding Site Plans), and Chapter 20.96 (Vacation and Alteration of Final Plats) of Title 20 POMC, with regard to the correct permit type classifications for vacation and alteration of subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans. Staff have therefore prepared revisions to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 POMC to resolve the identified inconsistencies and conflicts between these chapters, and also between these chapters and Chapter 20.94 POMC, as provided in the attached ordinance. The ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 4, 2018, and a public hearing was also held on that date. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance as submitted. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council vote to adopt an ordinance adopting the revisions to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code as presented. Motion for Consideration: “I move to adopt an ordinance adopting revisions to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code as presented.” Fiscal Impact: N/A Alternatives: Do not approve ordinance; direct staff to make changes to ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance, and Strikethrough-Underline Changes to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96. Page 5 of 154 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 6 of 154 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 20.22 (PERMIT PROCESS TYPES) AND CHAPTER 20.96 (VACATION AND ALTERATION OF FINAL PLATS) OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CORRECTIONS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017, the Port Orchard City Council adopted ordinance 019- 17 establishing a new unified development code (Title 20 POMC); and WHEREAS, City staff have become aware of inconsistencies and conflicts between Chapter 20.22 (Permit Process Types), Chapter 20.94 (Binding Site Plans) and Chapter 20.96 (Vacation and Alteration of Final Plats) of Title 20 POMC, with regard to the correct permit type classifications for vacation and alteration of subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans; and WHEREAS, the City may adopt amendments to the City’s development regulations pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, City staff have prepared revisions to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 POMC to resolve the identified inconsistencies and conflicts between these chapters, and also between these chapters and Chapter 20.94 POMC; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2018, the City submitted to the Department of Commerce a request for an expedited 14-day review of the proposed revisions to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 POMC, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b); and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2018, the City’s SEPA official issued a determination of non-significance for the proposed revisions to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 POMC, and there have been no appeals; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed revisions to Chapters 20.22 and 20.96 POMC, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed adoption; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Page 7 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 2 of 18 SECTION 1. The City Council adopts all of the “Whereas” sections of this ordinance as findings in support of this ordinance. SECTION 2. Chapter 20.22 POMC is revised to read as follows: CHAPTER 20.22 PERMITTING & DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL—PERMIT PROCESS TYPES Sections: 20.22.010 Permit Process Types—Classification. 20.22.020 Permit Process Types—Determination of types—Table. 20.22.030 Permit Process Types—Type I. 20.22.040 Permit Process Types—Type II. 20.22.050 Permit Process Types—Type III. 20.22.060 Permit Process Types—Type IV. 20.22.070 Permit Process Types—Type V. 20.22.010 Permit Process Types—Classification. The review and approval of land use and development permit applications shall be classified as either Type I, II, III, IV, or V based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision maker, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity. The types of decisions are set forth in this chapter. The application procedures identified in this chapter shall be pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. 20.22.020 Permit Process Types—Determination of types—Table. (1) Determination of proper decision type. The director shall determine the proper review procedure for all land use and development permit applications and actions. If there is a question as to the appropriate type of process, the director shall resolve it in favor of the higher process type number. (2) Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or processed individually under each of the procedures identified by the code. The applicant may determine whether the application shall be processed collectively or individually. If the application is processed under the individual procedures option, the highest numbered type procedure must be processed prior to the subsequent lower numbered procedure. If the individual procedure option is chosen, the applicant will be eligible for any fee reduction contained in the current fee schedule. Page 8 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 3 of 18 Table 20.22.020 – Permit Review Type Classifications Type I Director Decision Judicial Appeal Type II Director Decision HE Appeal Type III HE Decision Judicial Appeal Type IV City Council Decision Judicial Appeal Type V City Council Decision GMHB Appeal Building Permit1(Subtitle X of this title) Binding Site Plan, Final (Chapter 20.94 POMC) Preliminary Plat – Minor Modifications (Chapter 20.88 POMC) Land Disturbing Activity Permit (Chapter 20.140 POMC and POMC 20.150.100) Boundary Line Adjustment (Chapter 20.84 POMC) Code Interpretation (Chapter 20.10 POMC) Short Plat, Preliminary, Alteration of Preliminary, Alteration of Final, Vacation of Final (Chapter 20.86 and 20.96 POMC) Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 20.58 POMC) Binding Site Plan – Preliminary, Alteration of Preliminary, Alteration of Final, Vacation of Final (Chapter 20.94 POMC) Stormwater Drainage Permit (Chapter 20.150 POMC) Sign Permit (if SEPA required) Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plat Major Modifications, Alteration of Final, Vacation of Final (Chapter 20.88 and 20.96 POMC) Variance (Chapter 20.28 POMC) Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 20.50 POMC) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Nonadministrative Variance (Chapter 20.164 POMC) Planned Residential Developments Final Plat (Chapter 20.90 PO MC) Site-Specific Rezone without Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Chapter 20.42 POMC) Development Agreement (Chapter 20.26 PO MC) Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Land Use Map Amendment, Text Amendment (Chapter 20.04 POMC) Legislative Zoning Map Amendment (Chapter 20.06 POMC) Title 20 Code Amendment (Chapter 20.06 POMC) Page 9 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 4 of 18 Table 20.22.020 – Permit Review Type Classifications Type I Director Decision Judicial Appeal Type II Director Decision HE Appeal Type III HE Decision Judicial Appeal Type IV City Council Decision Judicial Appeal Type V City Council Decision GMHB Appeal Legal Nonconforming Permit (Chapter 20.54 POMC) Short Plat, Final (Chapter 20.86 POMC) Sign Permit (if SEPA not required) (Chapter 20.132 POMC) Sign Variance (Chapter 20.132 POMC) Shoreline Permit Exemption (Chapter 20.164 POM C) Temporary Use Permit, Extension (Chapter 20.132 POMC) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Administrative (Chapter 20.164 POMC) Variance – Administrative (Chapter 20.28 POMC) Comprehensive Sign Design Plan Permits Final Plat – Alteration or Vacation (Chapter 20.96 POMC) View Protection Overlay District (VPOD) Variance (POMC 20.38.713) Annexations Page 10 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 5 of 18 Table 20.22.020 – Permit Review Type Classifications Type I Director Decision Judicial Appeal Type II Director Decision HE Appeal Type III HE Decision Judicial Appeal Type IV City Council Decision Judicial Appeal Type V City Council Decision GMHB Appeal (Chapter 20.58 POMC) Untyped review and decision actions: preapplication meeting (Chapter 20.24 POMC), design review board review and recommendation (POMC 20.38.228), tax exemption for multifamily development (Chapter 3.48 POMC), capacity reservation certificate (Chapter 20.180POMC), public works design variation, right-of-way permit (Chapter 12.04 POMC), street use permit (Chapter 12.24 POMC), water/sewer connection permit (Chapter 13.04 POMC). 1 If a building permit application does not require SEPA review, no public notice is required. If a building permit application requires SEPA review, public notice shall be provided consistent with the requirements for Type II applications pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. 20.22.030 Type I (administrative decision, judicial appeal). (1) General. Type I applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type 1 actions must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified in this subtitle. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type I applications do not require a preapplication conference. (3) Notice of Application. Type I applications do not require a Notice of Application; unless environmental review is required under SEPA pursuant to Chapter 20.160 POMC. (4) Review of Application. Page 11 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 6 of 18 (a) The director shall commence permit review pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application. (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions all Type I applications. Conditions may be imposed directly on the plans (red-lining) or through other documentation reflected on the plans to ensure the requirements of city codes and regulations are met without going through another correction cycle before permit issuance. (5) Decision. (a) Type I applications are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline pursuant to POMC 20.24.100, but in most cases review may be complete within a much shorter time period. If no correction cycles are required, review should be complete within approximately 30 calendar days from the date of technical completeness. Correction cycles will extend review time in proportion to the time the city must wait for an applicant to submit additional or corrected information. (b) The decision of the director may be reflected on the plans or permit itself or may be documented in a written report or letter of approval. (6) Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Type I decision is not required. The applicant shall be notified in writing or by email that the permit is ready to issue or the application is approved. (7) Administrative Appeal. There is no administrative appeal of a Type I decision except for decisions that are appealable to the building board of appeals in accordance with this title and the International Codes as adopted by the City. (8) Judicial Appeal. A Type I decision not appealable to the building board of appeals may be appealed directly to superior court. 20.22.040 Type II (administrative decision, hearing examiner appeal). (1) General. Type II applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type II applications must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified below. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type II actions are required to participate in a preapplication conference pursuant to POMC 20.24.010. A limited preapplication conference may be allowed for projects that do not require substantial review by other departments such as variances and design review without SEPA or street improvement requirements. Page 12 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 7 of 18 (3) Notice of Application. Type II applications require a notice of application pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. (4) Review of Application. (a) The director shall commence permit review pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application. (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all Type II applications. Conditions may be imposed directly on the plans (red-lining), through other documentation reflected on the plans, or in a written staff report or other decision document, to ensure the requirements of city codes and regulations are met without going through another correction cycle before permit issuance. (5) Public Hearing. No public hearing is required for Type II decisions. (6) Decision. Type II decisions are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline requirement pursuant to POMC 20.24.100. A decision for a Type II action shall be made in writing by the director and shall include the following information: (a) A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application; (b) A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in this code and other applicable law; (c) A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the department which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria; (d) A summary of public comment received and how the department or applicant responded to the public comments or concerns; and (e) The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law. (7) Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Type II decision shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 20.24.100. Notice of a short plat or binding site plan shall be provided in the same manner as notice of application as set forth in Chapter 20.25 POMC. (8) Administrative Appeal. A Type II decision, except for shoreline substantial development permits and shoreline variances, may be appealed to the hearing examiner within 14 calendar days of the Notice Page 13 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 8 of 18 of Decision. A decision on a shoreline substantial development permit or shoreline variance may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to Chapter 20.164 POMC. Shoreline appeal procedures and information are available from the department or from the State Department of Ecology. Administrative appeals of director decisions to the hearing examiner are to be made on forms provided by the city and shall include the following information: (a) A brief statement regarding how the appellant is significantly affected by or interested in the matter appealed; (b) A specific clear and comprehensible statement of the appellant’s issues on appeal, noting appellant’s specific exceptions and objections to the decision or action being appealed; (c) The specific relief requested, such as reversal or modification; and (d) Signature, address, and phone and fax number of the appellant, and name and address of appellant’s designated representative, if any. (9) Judicial Appeal. The decision of the hearing examiner on a Type II appeal may be appealed to superior court. 20.22.050 Type III (hearing examiner decision, judicial appeal). (1) General. Type III applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type III applications must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified below. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type III applications are required to have a preapplication conference pursuant to POMC 20.24.010. (3) Notice of Application. Type III applications require a notice of application pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. (4) Review of Application. (a) The director shall commence permit review pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application or appropriate parts of the application. Page 14 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 9 of 18 (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall prepare a written recommendation to the hearing examiner. The director’s recommendation shall provide a description of the proposal, a listing of the permits or approvals included in the application, a statement of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposal, and a review of the background information and facts relied upon by the director for the recommendation. The recommendation shall enumerate any conditions needed to ensure the application meets each of the applicable decision criteria. (c) If a director recommendation is not available to the hearing examiner as provided in this section, the hearing examiner may reschedule or continue the hearing upon his or her own motion or upon the motion of a party, or the hearing examiner may decide the matter without the recommendation. (d) The director’s recommendation, and any additional staff reports, shall be consistent with RCW 36.70B.060(5). (5) Public Hearing. A Type III action requires an open record hearing before the hearing examiner. (a) At least fifteen (14) calendar days before the date of the hearing, public notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.25.050. (b) The director’s recommendation shall be made available on the date the hearing notice is issued. (c) SEPA appeals for type III decisions may be consolidated with a public hearing as provided for in POMC 20.160.240(5). (d) The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable codes and standards; except that for any SEPA DNS appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant. (e) The public hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the hearing examiner’s adopted rules and procedures and shall be recorded on audio or audiovisual tape. The hearing examiner may remand an application to staff at his or her discretion to allow staff to administratively address an issue or irregularity with the application or the processing thereof. (6) Decision. (a) A written decision for a Type III action shall be issued by the hearing examiner within 14 calendar days after the date the record closes, unless the applicant has consented in writing to an extension of this time period. The hearing examiner’s decision shall include the following information: Page 15 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 10 of 18 (i) A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application; (ii) A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in the municipal code and other applicable law; (iii) A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the hearing examiner which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria and standards; (iv) A summary of public testimony and public comment received and how the department or the applicant responded to the public testimony and public comments; and (v) The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law. (b) Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Type III decision shall be provided pursuant to POMC 20.24.100. (7) Reconsideration. (a) The hearing examiner may reconsider a Type III decision if a written request for such administrative appeal is filed by a party of record within 14 calendar days of the date of the notice of decision. Grounds for requesting reconsideration shall be limited to the following: (i) The decision or conditions of approval are not supported by facts in the record; (ii) The decision contains an error of law; (iii) There is newly discovered evidence potentially material to the decision which could not reasonably have been produced prior to the open record pre-decision hearing; or (iv) The applicant proposes changes to the proposal in response to deficiencies identified in the decision. (b) Any request for reconsideration shall be mailed to all parties of record on the same day as the request is mailed or delivered to the hearing examiner. (c) A request for reconsideration shall stop the running of the judicial appeal period on a Type III decision for seven calendar days. During this time period, the hearing examiner shall decide whether reconsideration is appropriate. If the hearing examiner decides to reconsider the decision, the judicial appeal period will be placed on hold until the reconsideration process is Page 16 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 11 of 18 complete and a new decision is issued. If the hearing examiner decides to reconsider a decision, all parties of record shall be notified. (d) The hearing examiner shall, by order, set a schedule for other parties of record to respond in writing to the reconsideration request and shall issue a decision no later than 14 calendar days following the due date for submittal of written responses. A new judicial appeal period shall commence from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision on reconsideration. (8) Judicial Appeal. Type III decisions, except shoreline conditional use permits and any associated shoreline permits, may be appealed to superior court. Shoreline decisions are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board. 20.22.060 Type IV (city council decision, judicial appeal). (1) General. Type IV applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type IV applications must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified below. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type IV applications are required to have a pre-application conference pursuant to POMC 20.24.010. (3) Notice of Application. Type IV applications require a Notice of Application pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. (4) Review of Application. (a) The director shall commence review of the permit application pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application or appropriate parts of the application. (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall prepare a written recommendation to the hearing body. The director’s recommendation shall provide a description of the proposal, a listing of the permits or approvals included in the application, a statement of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposal, and a review of the background information and facts relied upon by the director for the recommendation. The recommendation shall enumerate any conditions needed to ensure the application meets each of the applicable decision criteria. (c) If a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for the proposal, the DNS will be issued in conjunction with the director’s recommendation to the hearing body. Page 17 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 12 of 18 (d) Within 14 calendar days of holding a public hearing, the hearing body shall issue a recommendation on the application to the city council. (5) Public Hearing. A Type IV action requires an open record hearing for a recommendation before either the hearing examiner or planning commission, pursuant to the requirements of the individual permit application requirements. (a) At least 14 calendar days before the date of the hearing, public notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.25.050. (b) The director’s recommendation shall be made available on the date the hearing notice is issued. (c) SEPA appeals for Type IV decisions may be consolidated with a public hearing as provided for in POMC 20.160.240(5).The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable codes and standards; except that for any SEPA DNS appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant. (d) The public hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the hearing body’s adopted rules and procedures and shall be recorded on audio or audiovisual tape. (6) Decision. Following receipt of a recommendation from the hearing body, the city council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Type IV application by ordinance. (7) Administrative Appeal. There is no administrative appeal of Type IV decisions. (8) Judicial Appeal. A Type IV decision may be appealed to superior court. 20.22.070 Permit Process Types—Type V (legislative actions). (1) General. (a) Type V actions are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type V proposals are legislative actions, but not all legislative actions are Type V decisions. Legislative actions involve the creation, amendment, or implementation of policy or law by ordinance. In contrast to other types of actions, legislative actions apply to large geographic areas and are of interest to many property owners and citizens. (b) Type V actions are not subject to the application procedures in Chapter 20.24 POMC, unless otherwise specified. (2) Public Hearing. Page 18 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 13 of 18 (a) The planning commission shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions. A notice for the public hearing shall be provided pursuant to POMC 20.25.050. (b) The city council may hold a public hearing on Type V actions prior to passage of an ordinance or entry of a decision. (c) The planning commission and/or city council may require more than one public hearing for Type V actions. (d) Notice of a public hearing shall be provided to the public at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing by publishing notice as provided for in POMC 20.25.050. In addition to publishing notice and posting notice at city hall, at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing the city shall mail notice of the public hearing to the applicant, relevant government agencies, and other interested parties who have requested in writing to be notified of the hearing. If the legislative action is for a comprehensive plan amendment, notice of the public hearing shall also be posted and mailed pursuant to Chapter 20.04 POMC. The city may also provide optional methods of public notice as provided in Chapter 20.25 POMC. (3) Review. Review of Type V actions shall be pursuant to the applicable POMC chapter for each action. (4) Decision. The city council shall issue a final decision on all Type V actions by passage of an ordinance. (5) Appeals. A Type V decision may be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to the regulations set forth in RCW 36.70A.290. (6) Legislative Enactments Not Restricted. Nothing in this section, chapter, or Chapter 20.24 POMC shall limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, as part of a regular revision process, or to make changes to the city’s municipal code. SECTION 3. Chapter 20.96 POMC is revised to read as follows: CHAPTER 20.96 VACATION AND ALTERATION OF FINAL PLATS AND SHORT PLATS Sections: 20.96.010 Purpose. 20.96.020 Applicability. 20.96.030 Decision type. Page 19 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 14 of 18 20.96.040 Plat alteration—Application requirements. 20.96.050 Application requirements. 20.96.060 Additional notice of public hearing. 20.96.070 Criteria for Approval. 20.96.080 Time Limitation for Final Decision. 20.96.090 Recording. 20.96.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate and allow vacation or alteration of approved final subdivision plats (long subdivision plats) and approved final short plats (short subdivision plats). It does not allow modification or revision of preliminary plats or preliminary binding site plans. The procedure for vacation of final plats and final short plats does not apply to the vacation or alteration of any plat of state-granted tide or shore lands. 20.96.020 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all requests to alter or vacate long subdivision plats, or short subdivision plats. When an application under this chapter is submitted for the vacation of a plat together with roads/streets, the procedure for vacation in this chapter shall be used, except that vacations of streets subject to RCW 35.79.035 may not be made under this procedure. 20.96.030 Decision type. A long subdivision plat vacation or plat alteration is a Type III land use decision and shall be subject to the requirements of and processed in accordance with the procedures for such applications and decisions as set forth in Chapter 20.22 POMC. A short subdivision plat vacation or plat alteration is a Type II land use decision and shall be subject to the requirements of and processed in accordance with the procedures for such applications and decisions as set forth in Chapter 20.22 POMC. 20.96.040 Application requirements—Plat alteration. The following materials shall be submitted to the city for a complete application for the alteration of a final short subdivision or long subdivision: (1) Date, name, address and telephone number of the applicant and/or property owner; (2) The reason(s) for the proposed alteration; (3) Signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the subdivision proposed to be altered; (4) If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for the alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the Page 20 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 15 of 18 application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants, providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivision; (5) A copy of the proposed plat sought to be altered, together with all plat amendments recorded; (6) Mailing labels for all owners of property within the plat boundaries; and (7) A recent title report (no more than 30 days old) for each property affected by the vacation, confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown in the proposed vacation area is in the name of the owner(s) signing the application. 20.96.050 Application requirements—Plat vacation. The following materials shall be submitted to the city for a complete subdivision vacation application: (1) Date, name, address and telephone number of the applicant and/or property owner; (2) The reason(s) for the proposed vacation; (3) Signatures of all parties having an ownership interest in the subdivision or that portion of the subdivision proposed to be vacated; (4) If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for the vacation would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall include an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants, which provides that the parties agree to terminate or alter the restrictive covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or portion thereof; (5) Acknowledgement that if any street is included in the application for a vacation, that the applicant shall be required to pay the amount contemplated in RCW 35.79.030, if the vacation is granted; (6) A copy of the approved plat sought to be vacated, together with all plat amendments recorded since the date of the original approval; (7) Mailing labels for all owners of property within the plat boundaries; (8) A recent title report (no more than 30 days old) for each property affected by the vacation, confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown in the proposed vacation area is in the name of the owner(s) signing the application; and Page 21 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 16 of 18 (9) If the vacation is for a portion of the subdivision the applicant must demonstrate that the partial vacation will not violate the terms of subdivision approval or this chapter. 20.96.060 Additional notice of public hearing. In addition to the notice provided above, the city shall provide notice of an application for vacation or alteration to all owners of property within the subdivision (excluding the owners of property submitting the application), as provided for in Subtitle II of this Title, and as provided for in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090. The notice shall establish the date of the public hearing. 20.96.070 Criteria for Approval. (1) Vacation Criteria. The plat vacation may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after a written determination, with findings and conclusions, is made whether the public use and interest will be served by the vacation. (2) Dedications and Easements. If any portion of the land contained in the subdivision was dedicated to the public for public use and benefit, such land, if not already deeded to the city, shall be deeded to the city as a condition of approval, unless the city shall make findings that the public use would not be served in retaining title to those lands. Easements established by a dedication are property rights that cannot be extinguished or altered without the approval of the easement owner or owners, unless the plat or other document creating the dedicated easement provides or an alternative method or methods to extinguish or alter the easement. (3) Street Vacations. When the vacation application is specifically for vacation of a city street, the city’s street vacation procedures (and/or the procedures in chapter 35.79 RCW) shall be utilized. When the procedure is for the vacation of a plat together with the streets, the vacation procedure in this chapter shall be used, but vacation of streets may not be made that are prohibited under RCW 35.79.035 or the city’s street vacation ordinance. (4) Title to Vacated Property. Title to the vacated property shall vest with the rightful owner as shown on the county records. If the vacated land is land that was dedicated to the public, for public use other than a road or street, and the legislative authority has found that retaining title to the land is not in the public interest, title thereto shall vest with the person(s) owning the property on each side thereof, as determined by the legislative authority. When the road or street that is to be vacated is contained wholly within the subdivision and is part of the boundary of the subdivision, title to the vacated road or street shall vest with the owner(s) of property contained within the vacated subdivision. Page 22 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 17 of 18 (5) Alteration Criteria. The alteration may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after a written determination, with findings and conclusions, is made whether the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. If any land within the alteration area is part of an assessment district, any outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and levied against the remaining lots, parcels or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots resulting from the alteration. If any land within the alteration contains a dedication to the general use of persons residing within the subdivision, such land may be altered and divided equitably between the adjacent properties. 20.96.080 Time Limitation for Final Decision. A vacation or alteration application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied within 120 days after the application has been determined to be complete pursuant to POMC 20.24.050, unless the applicant consents in writing to an extension of such time period. 20.96.090 Recording. After approval of the alteration or vacation, the city shall order the applicant to produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration or vacation of the short plat or final plat. The council shall authorize the mayor to sign the approved short plat or final plat, and then the city shall file it with the county auditor at the applicant’s cost, to become the lawful plat of the property (or to vacate the previously approved plat). SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 5. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and/or code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to this ordinance, including but not limited to the correction of scrivener’s/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference thereto. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the city and shall take full force and effect five (5) days after the date of publication. A summary of this ordinance in the form of the ordinance title may be published in lieu of publishing the ordinance in its entirety. 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 9th day of October 2018. Page 23 of 154 Ordinance No. __-18 Page 18 of 18 Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sponsored by: Sharon Cates, City Attorney Scott Diener, Councilmember PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: Page 24 of 154 1 CHAPTERS 20.22 AND 20.96 POMC PROPOSED REVISIONS (SHOWN AS STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE) CHAPTER 20.22 PERMITTING & DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL—PERMIT PROCESS TYPES Sections: 20.22.010 Permit Process Types—Classification. 20.22.020 Permit Process Types—Determination of types—Table. 20.22.030 Permit Process Types—Type I. 20.22.040 Permit Process Types—Type II. 20.22.050 Permit Process Types—Type III. 20.22.060 Permit Process Types—Type IV. 20.22.070 Permit Process Types—Type V. 20.22.010 Permit Process Types—Classification. The review and approval of land use and development permit applications shall be classified as either Type I, II, III, IV, or V based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision maker, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity. The types of decisions are set forth in this chapter. The application procedures identified in this chapter shall be pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. 20.22.020 Permit Process Types—Determination of types—Table. (1) Determination of proper decision type. The director shall determine the proper review procedure for all land use and development permit applications and actions. If there is a question as to the appropriate type of process, the director shall resolve it in favor of the higher process type number. (2) Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or processed individually under each of the procedures identified by the code. The applicant may determine whether the application shall be processed collectively or individually. If the application is processed under the individual procedures option, the highest numbered type procedure must be processed prior to the subsequent lower numbered procedure. If the individual procedure option is chosen, the applicant will be eligible for any fee reduction contained in the current fee schedule. Page 25 of 154 2 Table 20.22.020 – Permit Review Type Classifications Type I Director Decision Judicial Appeal Type II Director Decision HE Appeal Type III HE Decision Judicial Appeal Type IV City Council Decision Judicial Appeal Type V City Council Decision GMHB Appeal Building Permit1(Subtitle X of this title) Binding Site Plan, Final (Chapter 20.94 POMC) Preliminary Plat – Minor Modifications (Chapter 20.88 POMC) Land Disturbing Activity Permit (Chapter 20.140 POMC and POMC 20.150.100) Boundary Line Adjustment (Chapter 20.84 POMC) Code Interpretation (Chapter 20.10 POMC) Short Plat, Preliminary, Alteration of Preliminary, Alteration of Final, Vacation of Final (Chapter 20.86 and 20.96 POMC) Temporary Use Permit (Chapter 20.58 POMC) Binding Site Plan – Preliminary, Alteration of Preliminary, Alteration of Final, Vacation of Final (Chapter 20.94 POMC) Stormwater Drainage Permit (Chapter 20.150 POMC) Sign Permit (if SEPA required) (Chapter 20.132 POMC) Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Plat Major Modifications, Alteration of Final, Vacation of Final (Chapter 20.88 and 20.96 POMC) Variance (Chapter 20.28 POMC) Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 20.50 POMC) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Nonadministrative Variance (Chapter 20.164 POMC) Planned Residential Developments Comprehensive Sign Design Plan Permits Final Plat (Chapter 20.90 PO MC) Site-Specific Rezone without Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Chapter 20.42 POMC) Development Agreement (Chapter 20.26 PO MC) Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Land Use Map Amendment, Text Amendment (Chapter 20.04 POMC) Legislative Zoning Map Amendment (Chapter 20.06 POMC) Title 20 Code Amendment (Chapter 20.06 POMC) Annexations Page 26 of 154 3 Table 20.22.020 – Permit Review Type Classifications Type I Director Decision Judicial Appeal Type II Director Decision HE Appeal Type III HE Decision Judicial Appeal Type IV City Council Decision Judicial Appeal Type V City Council Decision GMHB Appeal Legal Nonconforming Permit (Chapter 20.54 POMC) Short Plat, Final (Chapter 20.86 POMC) Sign Permit (if SEPA not required) (Chapter 20.132 POMC) Sign Variance (Chapter 20.132 POMC) Shoreline Permit Exemption (Chapter 20.164 POM C) Temporary Use Permit, Extension (Chapter 20.58 POMC) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Administrative (Chapter 20.164 POMC) Variance – Administrative (Chapter 20.28 POMC) Final Plat – Alteration or Vacation (Chapter 20.96 POMC) View Protection Overlay District (VPOD) Variance (POMC 20.38.713) Untyped review and decision actions: preapplication meeting (Chapter 20.24 POMC), design review board review and recommendation (POMC 20.38.228), tax exemption for multifamily development (Chapter 3.48 POMC), capacity reservation certificate (Chapter 20.180POMC), public works design variation, Page 27 of 154 4 right-of-way permit (Chapter 12.04 POMC), street use permit (Chapter 12.24 POMC), water/sewer connection permit (Chapter 13.04 POMC). 1 If a building permit application does not require SEPA review, no public notice is required. If a building permit application requires SEPA review, public notice shall be provided consistent with the requirements for Type II applications pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. 20.22.030 Type I (administrative decision, judicial appeal). (1) General. Type I applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type 1 actions must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified in this subtitle. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type I applications do not require a preapplication conference. (3) Notice of Application. Type I applications do not require a Notice of Application; unless environmental review is required under SEPA pursuant to Chapter 20.160 POMC. (4) Review of Application. (a) The director shall commence permit review pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application. (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions all Type I applications. Conditions may be imposed directly on the plans (red-lining) or through other documentation reflected on the plans to ensure the requirements of city codes and regulations are met without going through another correction cycle before permit issuance. (5) Decision. (a) Type I applications are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline pursuant to POMC 20.24.100, but in most cases review may be complete within a much shorter time period. If no correction cycles are required, review should be complete within approximately 30 calendar days from the date of technical completeness. Correction cycles will extend review time in proportion to the time the city must wait for an applicant to submit additional or corrected information. (b) The decision of the director may be reflected on the plans or permit itself or may be documented in a written report or letter of approval. (6) Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Type I decision is not required. The applicant shall be notified in writing or by email that the permit is ready to issue or the application is approved. Page 28 of 154 5 (7) Administrative Appeal. There is no administrative appeal of a Type I decision except for decisions that are appealable to the building board of appeals in accordance with this title and the International Codes as adopted by the City. (8) Judicial Appeal. A Type I decision not appealable to the building board of appeals may be appealed directly to superior court. 20.22.040 Type II (administrative decision, hearing examiner appeal). (1) General. Type II applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type II applications must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified below. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type II actions are required to participate in a preapplication conference pursuant to POMC 20.24.010. A limited preapplication conference may be allowed for projects that do not require substantial review by other departments such as variances and design review without SEPA or street improvement requirements. (3) Notice of Application. Type II applications require a notice of application pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. (4) Review of Application. (a) The director shall commence permit review pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application. (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all Type II applications. Conditions may be imposed directly on the plans (red-lining), through other documentation reflected on the plans, or in a written staff report or other decision document, to ensure the requirements of city codes and regulations are met without going through another correction cycle before permit issuance. (5) Public Hearing. No public hearing is required for Type II decisions. (6) Decision. Type II decisions are subject to the maximum 120-day timeline requirement pursuant to POMC 20.24.100. A decision for a Type II action shall be made in writing by the director and shall include the following information: (a) A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application; (b) A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in this code and other applicable law; (c) A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the department which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria; Page 29 of 154 6 (d) A summary of public comment received and how the department or applicant responded to the public comments or concerns; and (e) The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law. (7) Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Type II decision shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 20.24.100. Notice of a short plat or binding site plan shall be provided in the same manner as notice of application as set forth in Chapter 20.25 POMC. (8) Administrative Appeal. A Type II decision, except for shoreline substantial development permits and shoreline variances, may be appealed to the hearing examiner within 14 calendar days of the Notice of Decision. A decision on a shoreline substantial development permit or shoreline variance may be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to Chapter 20.164 POMC. Shoreline appeal procedures and information are available from the department or from the State Department of Ecology. Administrative appeals of director decisions to the hearing examiner are to be made on forms provided by the city and shall include the following information: (a) A brief statement regarding how the appellant is significantly affected by or interested in the matter appealed; (b) A specific clear and comprehensible statement of the appellant’s issues on appeal, noting appellant’s specific exceptions and objections to the decision or action being appealed; (c) The specific relief requested, such as reversal or modification; and (d) Signature, address, and phone and fax number of the appellant, and name and address of appellant’s designated representative, if any. (9) Judicial Appeal. The decision of the hearing examiner on a Type II appeal may be appealed to superior court. 20.22.050 Type III (hearing examiner decision, judicial appeal). (1) General. Type III applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type III applications must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified below. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type III applications are required to have a preapplication conference pursuant to POMC 20.24.010. (3) Notice of Application. Type III applications require a notice of application pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. (4) Review of Application. (a) The director shall commence permit review pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an Page 30 of 154 7 application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application or appropriate parts of the application. (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall prepare a written recommendation to the hearing examiner. The director’s recommendation shall provide a description of the proposal, a listing of the permits or approvals included in the application, a statement of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposal, and a review of the background information and facts relied upon by the director for the recommendation. The recommendation shall enumerate any conditions needed to ensure the application meets each of the applicable decision criteria. (c) If a director recommendation is not available to the hearing examiner as provided in this section, the hearing examiner may reschedule or continue the hearing upon his or her own motion or upon the motion of a party, or the hearing examiner may decide the matter without the recommendation. (d) The director’s recommendation, and any additional staff reports, shall be consistent with RCW 36.70B.060(5). (5) Public Hearing. A Type III action requires an open record hearing before the hearing examiner. (a) At least fifteen (14) calendar days before the date of the hearing, public notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.25.050. (b) The director’s recommendation shall be made available on the date the hearing notice is issued. (c) SEPA appeals for type III decisions may be consolidated with a public hearing as provided for in POMC 20.160.240(5). (d) The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable codes and standards; except that for any SEPA DNS appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant. (e) The public hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the hearing examiner’s adopted rules and procedures and shall be recorded on audio or audiovisual tape. The hearing examiner may remand an application to staff at his or her discretion to allow staff to administratively address an issue or irregularity with the application or the processing thereof. (6) Decision. (a) A written decision for a Type III action shall be issued by the hearing examiner within 14 calendar days after the date the record closes, unless the applicant has consented in writing to an extension of this time period. The hearing examiner’s decision shall include the following information: Page 31 of 154 8 (i) A description of the proposal and a listing of permits or approvals included in the application; (ii) A statement of the applicable criteria and standards in the municipal code and other applicable law; (iii) A statement of background information and facts relied upon by the hearing examiner which show the application does or does not comply with the approval criteria and standards; (iv) A summary of public testimony and public comment received and how the department or the applicant responded to the public testimony and public comments; and (v) The decision to deny or approve the application and, if approved, any conditions of approval necessary to ensure the proposed development will comply with applicable law. (b) Notice of Decision. Public notice of a Type III decision shall be provided pursuant to POMC 20.24.100. (7) Reconsideration. (a) The hearing examiner may reconsider a Type III decision if a written request for such administrative appeal is filed by a party of record within 14 calendar days of the date of the notice of decision. Grounds for requesting reconsideration shall be limited to the following: (i) The decision or conditions of approval are not supported by facts in the record; (ii) The decision contains an error of law; (iii) There is newly discovered evidence potentially material to the decision which could not reasonably have been produced prior to the open record pre-decision hearing; or (iv) The applicant proposes changes to the proposal in response to deficiencies identified in the decision. (b) Any request for reconsideration shall be mailed to all parties of record on the same day as the request is mailed or delivered to the hearing examiner. (c) A request for reconsideration shall stop the running of the judicial appeal period on a Type III decision for seven calendar days. During this time period, the hearing examiner shall decide whether reconsideration is appropriate. If the hearing examiner decides to reconsider the decision, the judicial appeal period will be placed on hold until the reconsideration process is complete and a new decision is issued. If the hearing examiner decides to reconsider a decision, all parties of record shall be notified. (d) The hearing examiner shall, by order, set a schedule for other parties of record to respond in writing to the reconsideration request and shall issue a decision no later than 14 calendar days Page 32 of 154 9 following the due date for submittal of written responses. A new judicial appeal period shall commence from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision on reconsideration. (8) Judicial Appeal. Type III decisions, except shoreline conditional use permits and any associated shoreline permits, may be appealed to superior court. Shoreline decisions are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings Board. 20.22.060 Type IV (city council decision, judicial appeal). (1) General. Type IV applications are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type IV applications must meet all applicable requirements of the POMC in addition to the requirements specified below. (2) Preapplication Conference. Type IV applications are required to have a pre-application conference pursuant to POMC 20.24.010. (3) Notice of Application. Type IV applications require a Notice of Application pursuant to Chapter 20.25 POMC. (4) Review of Application. (a) The director shall commence review of the permit application pursuant to Chapter 20.24 POMC. The director shall determine which city departments are responsible for reviewing or commenting on an application and shall ensure the affected departments receive a copy of the application or appropriate parts of the application. (b) Following a determination of technical completeness and determination of consistency pursuant to POMC 20.24.090, the director shall prepare a written recommendation to the hearing body. The director’s recommendation shall provide a description of the proposal, a listing of the permits or approvals included in the application, a statement of the criteria and standards applicable to the proposal, and a review of the background information and facts relied upon by the director for the recommendation. The recommendation shall enumerate any conditions needed to ensure the application meets each of the applicable decision criteria. (c) If a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for the proposal, the DNS will be issued in conjunction with the director’s recommendation to the hearing body. (d) Within 14 calendar days of holding a public hearing, the hearing body shall issue a recommendation on the application to the city council. (5) Public Hearing. A Type IV action requires an open record hearing for a recommendation before either the hearing examiner or planning commission, pursuant to the requirements of the individual permit application requirements. (a) At least 14 calendar days before the date of the hearing, public notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with the requirements of POMC 20.25.050. Page 33 of 154 10 (b) The director’s recommendation shall be made available on the date the hearing notice is issued. (c) SEPA appeals for Type IV decisions may be consolidated with a public hearing as provided for in POMC 20.160.240(5).The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal conforms to applicable codes and standards; except that for any SEPA DNS appeal, the burden of proof is on the appellant. (d) The public hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the hearing body’s adopted rules and procedures and shall be recorded on audio or audiovisual tape. (6) Decision. Following receipt of a recommendation from the hearing body, the city council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Type IV application by ordinance. (7) Administrative Appeal. There is no administrative appeal of Type IV decisions. (8) Judicial Appeal. A Type IV decision may be appealed to superior court. 20.22.070 Permit Process Types—Type V (legislative actions). (1) General. (a) Type V actions are defined pursuant to POMC 20.22.020. All Type V proposals are legislative actions, but not all legislative actions are Type V decisions. Legislative actions involve the creation, amendment, or implementation of policy or law by ordinance. In contrast to other types of actions, legislative actions apply to large geographic areas and are of interest to many property owners and citizens. (b) Type V actions are not subject to the application procedures in Chapter 20.24 POMC, unless otherwise specified. (2) Public Hearing. (a) The planning commission shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions. A notice for the public hearing shall be provided pursuant to POMC 20.25.050. (b) The city council may hold a public hearing on Type V actions prior to passage of an ordinance or entry of a decision. (c) The planning commission and/or city council may require more than one public hearing for Type V actions. (d) Notice of a public hearing shall be provided to the public at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing by publishing notice as provided for in POMC 20.25.050. In addition to publishing notice and posting notice at city hall, at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing the city shall mail notice of the public hearing to the applicant, relevant government agencies, and other interested parties who have requested in writing to be notified of the hearing. If the legislative Page 34 of 154 11 action is for a comprehensive plan amendment, notice of the public hearing shall also be posted and mailed pursuant to Chapter 20.04 POMC. The city may also provide optional methods of public notice as provided in Chapter 20.25 POMC. (3) Review. Review of Type V actions shall be pursuant to the applicable POMC chapter for each action. (4) Decision. The city council shall issue a final decision on all Type V actions by passage of an ordinance. (5) Appeals. A Type V decision may be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board pursuant to the regulations set forth in RCW 36.70A.290. (6) Legislative Enactments Not Restricted. Nothing in this section, chapter, or Chapter 20.24 POMC shall limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s comprehensive plan, as part of a regular revision process, or to make changes to the city’s municipal code. CHAPTER 20.96 VACATION AND ALTERATION OF FINAL PLATS AND SHORT PLATS Sections: 20.96.010 Purpose. 20.96.020 Applicability. 20.96.030 Decision type. 20.96.040 Plat alteration—Application requirements. 20.96.050 Application requirements. 20.96.060 Additional notice of public hearing. 20.96.070 Criteria for Approval. 20.96.080 Time Limitation for Final Decision. 20.96.090 Recording. 20.96.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate and allow vacation or alteration of approved final subdivision plats (long subdivision plats) and approved final short plats (short subdivision plats)approved final binding site plans. It does not allow modification or revision of preliminary plats or preliminary binding site plans. The procedure for vacation of final plats and final short plats does not apply to the vacation or alteration of any plat of state-granted tide or shore lands. 20.96.020 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all requests to alter or vacate long subdivisions plats, or short subdivisions plats, or binding site plans. When an application under this chapter is submitted for the vacation of a Page 35 of 154 12 plat or binding site plan together with roads/streets, the procedure for vacation in this chapter shall be used, except that vacations of streets subject to RCW 35.79.035 may not be made under this procedure. 20.96.030 Decision type. A long subdivision plat vacation or plat alteration is a Type III land use decision and shall be subject to the requirements of and processed in accordance with the procedures for such applications and decisions as set forth in Chapter 20.22 POMC. A short subdivision plat vacation or plat alteration is a Type II land use decision and shall be subject to the requirements of and processed in accordance with the procedures for such applications and decisions as set forth in Chapter 20.22 POMC. 20.96.040 Application requirements—Plat alteration. The following materials shall be submitted to the city for a complete application for the alteration of a final short subdivision, or long subdivision, or binding site plan: (1) Date, name, address and telephone number of the applicant and/or property owner; (2) The reason(s) for the proposed alteration; (3) Signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership interest in the lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions in the subdivision proposed to be altered; (4) If the subdivision or binding site planis subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision or binding site plan, and the application for the alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants, providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivisionor binding site plan; (5) A copy of the proposed plat sought to be altered, together with all plat amendments recorded; (6) Mailing labels for all owners of property within the plat boundaries; and (7) A recent title report (no more than 30 days old) for each property affected by the vacation, confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown in the proposed vacation area is in the name of the owner(s) signing the application. (8) If the alteration is for a portion of the subdivision or binding site plan, the applicant must demonstrate that the alteration will not violate the terms of subdivision or binding site plan approval or this chapter. 20.96.050 Application requirements—Plat vacation. The following materials shall be submitted to the city for a complete subdivision vacation application: (1) Date, name, address and telephone number of the applicant and/or property owner; Page 36 of 154 13 (2) The reason(s) for the proposed vacation; (3) Signatures of all parties having an ownership interest in the subdivision or that portion of the subdivision proposed to be vacated; (4) If the subdivision or binding site plan is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for the vacation would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall include an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants, which provides that the parties agree to terminate or alter the restrictive covenants to accomplish the purpose of the vacation of the subdivision or portion thereof; (5) Acknowledgement that if any street is included in the application for a vacation, that the applicant shall be required to pay the amount contemplated in RCW 35.79.030, if the vacation is granted; (6) A copy of the approved plat or binding site plan sought to be vacated, together with all plat or binding site plan amendments recorded since the date of the original approval; (7) Mailing labels for all owners of property within the plat boundaries; (8) A recent title report (no more than 30 days old) for each property affected by the vacation, confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown in the proposed vacation area is in the name of the owner(s) signing the application; and (9) If the vacation is for a portion of the subdivision or binding site plan, the applicant must demonstrate that the partial vacation will not violate the terms of subdivision or binding site plan approval or this chapter. 20.96.060 Additional notice of public hearing. In addition to the notice provided above, the city shall provide notice of an application for vacation or alteration to all owners of property within the subdivision (excluding the owners of property submitting the application), as provided for in Subtitle II of this Title, and as provided for in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090. The notice shall establish the date of the public hearing. 20.96.070 Criteria for Approval. (1) Vacation Criteria. The plat or binding site plan vacation may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after a written determination, with findings and conclusions, is made whether the public use and interest will be served by the vacation. (2) Dedications and Easements. If any portion of the land contained in the subdivision or binding site plan was dedicated to the public for public use and benefit, such land, if not already deeded to the city, shall be deeded to the city as a condition of approval, unless the city shall make findings that the public use would not be served in retaining title to those lands. Easements established by a dedication are property rights that cannot be extinguished or altered without the approval of the easement owner Page 37 of 154 14 or owners, unless the plat, binding site plan or other document creating the dedicated easement provides or an alternative method or methods to extinguish or alter the easement. (3) Street Vacations. When the vacation application is specifically for vacation of a city street, the city’s street vacation procedures (and/or the procedures in chapter 35.79 RCW) shall be utilized. When the procedure is for the vacation of a plat or binding site plan together with the streets, the vacation procedure in this chapter shall be used, but vacation of streets may not be made that are prohibited under RCW 35.79.035 or the city’s street vacation ordinance. (4) Title to Vacated Property. Title to the vacated property shall vest with the rightful owner as shown on the county records. If the vacated land is land that was dedicated to the public, for public use other than a road or street, and the legislative authority has found that retaining title to the land is not in the public interest, title thereto shall vest with the person(s) owning the property on each side thereof, as determined by the legislative authority. When the road or street that is to be vacated is contained wholly within the subdivision or binding site plan and is part of the boundary of the subdivision or binding site plan, title to the vacated road or street shall vest with the owner(s) of property contained within the vacated subdivision or binding site plan. (5) Alteration Criteria. The alteration may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after a written determination, with findings and conclusions, is made whether the public use and interest will be served by the alteration. If any land within the alteration area is part of an assessment district, any outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and levied against the remaining lots, parcels or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots resulting from the alteration. If any land within the alteration contains a dedication to the general use of persons residing within the subdivision, such land may be altered and divided equitably between the adjacent properties. 20.96.080 Time Limitation for Final Decision. A vacation or alteration application shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied within 120 days after the application has been determined to be complete pursuant to POMC 20.24.050, unless the applicant consents in writing to an extension of such time period. 20.96.090 Recording. After approval of the alteration or vacation, the city shall order the applicant to produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration or vacation of the short plat, or final plat or binding site plan. The council shall authorize the mayor to sign the approved short plat or final plat, and then the city shall file it with the county auditor at the applicant’s cost, to become the lawful plat of the property (or to vacate the previously approved plat). The Director shall sign the approved binding site plan and arrange for filing with the county auditor at the applicant’s cost. Page 38 of 154 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: October 9, 2018 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing Prepared by: Deborah Howard a Civil Engineer I Position HR Coordinator Atty Routing No.: N/A N/A Summary: The current workload of the Public Works/Engineering Department has increased significantly over the last 6 months which has included the increased volume of active development and capital projects. With this increase in workload, the need for a full time Civil Engineer I is critical to the efficiency of the Public Works/Engineering Department. This individual would be responsible for aiding the Engineers with Development review and inspection, construction administration, GIS and AutoCAD mapping. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance, as presented, to approve approving the job description and salary scale for a Civil Engineer I position in the Public Works/Engineering Department. Motion for consideration: I move to adopt an ordinance, approving the job description and salary scale for a Civil Engineer I position in the Public Works/Engineering Department thereon, as presented. Fiscal Impact: Estimated Annual Salary & Benefits: $123,600 Alternatives: Not approve this request Attachments: Ordinance, Job Description, Salary Scale Page 39 of 154 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 40 of 154 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING A FULL TIME CIVIL ENGINEER I POSITION. WHEREAS, the level of private development and City capitol project management has significantly increased; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Engineering department is increasingly in need of more staff time to review and process permits, perform on-site inspections, work with consultants on capitol project designs and provide services during construction of public facilities; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide a high level of service to the community with an entry level engineer to support the Engineering Department; and WHEREAS, the Civil Engineer I job description and the salary step schedule, attached as Exhibit A, is respectfully submitted with a recommendation for approval, now, therefore; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Port Orchard City Council approves the attached job description and salary scale and authorizes a full time Civil Engineer I position. SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect five days after publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 9 day of October, 2018. Robert Putaansuu, Mayor Page 41 of 154 Ordinance No. ___ Page 2 of 2 ATTEST: SPONSOR: Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk ** , Councilmember APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sharon Cates, City Attorney PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: Page 42 of 154 EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION: CIVIL ENGINEER I PAGE 1 OF 7 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD JOB DESCRIPTION Job Title: Civil Engineer I FLSA: Non-Exempt Civil Service: Exempt Department: Public Works Department Reports To: Public Works Director The Civil Engineer shall report to and serve under the direction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and coordinate with the Assistant City Engineer. Attendance at evening or weekend meetings or other off-duty events may be required. May also be called back to work before or after regularly scheduled work hours or on scheduled days off. Major Function and Purpose The Civil Engineer performs professional level engineering work including design, construction and project management for municipal projects; defines project scopes, cost estimates, design calculations, plans and specifications; manages consultant contracts and oversees consultant designs for municipal projects. General Function The Civil Engineer will be tasked with assisting other teams with private development, roadway design, water, sewer, and municipal engineering projects and should have a strong background in the preparation of construction documents in Civil 3D. Supervision Responsibilities None Job Duties & Responsibilities Under direction Public Works Director and coordinating with the Assistant City Engineer, the Civil Engineer will perform civil engineering duties related to City development activities including utility systems, reservoirs, treatment plants, public buildings, streets, and other projects as assigned; Prepares and updates engineering drawings, maps of utility systems and graphic displays, plans and specifications; manage contract services; and respond to questions and inquiries from the general public, developers, contractors, engineering professionals, and City staff regarding engineering and development projects. Page 43 of 154 EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION: CIVIL ENGINEER I PAGE 2 OF 7 REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES Duties dependent on level hired into the series (I-III). Incumbents may not perform all of the listed duties and/or may be required to perform additional or different duties from those set forth below to address business needs and changing business practices. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES • Develop initial project plans and assist in establishing schedules and budgets. Coordinate projects with adjoining property owners, municipal and state stakeholders. • Design and manage assigned projects. Provide guidance, direction and oversight for the preparation of plans, specifications, cost estimates, and bid documents for City utility and street construction projects from conceptual design through construction. • Perform CAD drafting to assist with development, design, and construction of public work projects and other related drafting tasks. • Provide technical assistance to developers during site development plan reviews to assure compliance with City codes, ordinances and general engineering practices; perform site reviews as necessary. • Communicate recommendations with stakeholders, exchange information, respond to inquiries and complaints; assure appropriate information is provided and problems are resolved. • Manage assigned projects during construction; maintain project records, documentation and contracts; prepare payment requests; monitor project expenditures and maintain budgeted parameters. • Assist the Assistant Engineer in the management of projects and the operation, design, construction, and maintenance for the City’s storm water, sanitary sewer, and water system maintenance operations. • Manage consultant contracts and related projects as necessary; represent the City on assigned boards/committees. • Produce correspondence between the City, contractors, consultants, agencies and the general public regarding project matters such as change orders, rights of way and claims for damage; prepare progress pay estimates and reimbursement requests. • Prepare a variety of technical reports to support engineering programs; present written and oral recommendations. Assist Engineering leadership and personnel in the preparation of long range Transportation Improvement Plans, Utility Improvement Plans and Capital Improvement Programs. • Responds to questions and inquiries from the general public, developers, contractors, engineering professionals, and City staff regarding engineering and development projects. Page 44 of 154 EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION: CIVIL ENGINEER I PAGE 3 OF 7 • Lead the preparation of grant applications to ensure compliance with federal /state grant programs and regulations. Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Knowledge of: • Civil engineering principals, practices and mathematics, Basic hydrological and hydraulic principals. • Elements and procedures related to roadway and drain system construction, operation and maintenance. Current methods of surface water management including runoff quality enhancement. • Interpreting plans specifications, drafting terminology and symbols, ordinances, regulatory documents, standards, maintenance manuals and construction manuals and application of these resources and regulations to work assignments. • Methods and techniques of conducting site and field investigations. • Principles and practices of business correspondence and technical report preparation. • Office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and applicable software applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, databases, AutoCAD, GIS and other specialized engineering software programs. • Pertinent federal, state, and local laws, codes, and regulations affecting civil engineering projects. Ability to: • Execute assignments, projects and job responsibilities efficiently and within defined timeframes; work independently and effectively with little direction. • Demonstrate good judgment and employ critical thinking to execute duties, identify issues, seek solutions and recommend improvements in support of departmental goals. • Provide assistance to staff and higher level management; participate in resolving operational or interpersonal concerns; participate in training, meetings, and on committees as assigned. • Gather and assimilate information from a broad range of resources. • Develop understandable GIS maps for storm, sanitary sewer, and water systems. • Effectively coordinate, manage, and track multiple project activities on several projects concurrently. • Prepare clear and concise technical and administrative reports. • Prepare, review, interpret, and analyze engineering plans, drawings, specifications, contract documents, and engineering reports for conformance to professional standards, contract obligations and approved budget. • Interpret and explain engineering projects to the business community and the general public. Page 45 of 154 EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION: CIVIL ENGINEER I PAGE 4 OF 7 • Understand, interpret, explain, and apply applicable federal, state, and local policies, laws, and regulations. • Provide technical assistance to other division, department and City staff regarding assigned engineering issues and problems. • Operate office equipment including computers and applicable software applications such as word processing, spreadsheets, databases and specialized engineering software programs. • Evaluate the condition of Public Works facilities and devise solutions to problems. • Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. • Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. • Prepare/plot AutoCAD drawings under the supervision of the Public Works Director/City Engineer and/or the Assistant City Engineer. Working Conditions The Civil Engineer may work either indoors or outdoors as required. The employee must be capable of working in confined spaces, on ladders, inclines and/or in noisy work areas. He/she may be exposed to extremes in temperature, chemicals or noxious fumes, and to insect stings. The Civil Engineer may be required to walk in, or around construction sites to perform the essential functions of the position. Exposure to hazards is commonplace. Among the hazards encountered are dampness, direct sunlight, communicable disease, dust, pollen, epoxy chemicals, machinery or its moving parts, cleaning fluids, chemicals, pesticides, insecticides, paints, cleaning agents or similar solutions, insect stings, liquid chemicals, noisy work area, noxious odors, fumes or chemicals, and smoke. Hazardous areas may be encountered, including open ditches, vaults, manholes, heavy machinery, hazardous gases, excessive noise, and vehicle traffic. Protective clothing may be required in the performance of some job duties. Contacts and Relationships The Civil Engineer may have frequent contact with City elected officials, state, county and municipal government officials, and outside consultants, auditors and other business-related individuals or agencies. In the normal course of business, the Civil Engineer will have contact with other Public Works employees, contractors, other city personnel and the public. These contacts involve a wide variety and range of purpose, including the need to provide or collect information, coordinate projects or activities and to solve or negotiate solutions to problems. Communication may be either by telephone, in person or through written message. Physical Requirements The Civil Engineer must have the overall stamina and ability to perform moderate to strenuous physical activity, including the ability to stand or walk for extended periods of time, traversing rough terrain, working in or over water, working at heights or on scaffolding, and lifting or carrying up to Page 46 of 154 EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION: CIVIL ENGINEER I PAGE 5 OF 7 50 pounds. Job requirement may include the ability to climb up to 20 feet off the ground; bend and/or work in tight or confined areas. The incumbent must be able to hear alarms and have the ability to audibly identify the presence of a danger or hazard. Must have the ability to sit at a desk and operate a computer for extended periods of time as necessary to complete work responsibilities. Page 47 of 154 EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION: CIVIL ENGINEER I PAGE 6 OF 7 Desired Minimum Qualifications Education and Experience: • Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering. • Civil Engineer I: Engineer in Training certification. • We prefer candidates with 2-5 years' experience in hydraulic modeling and design, AutoCAD design of water, sewer, stormwater and streets, water supply and wastewater, development plan review, and GIS mapping. • WA Driver’s license. • All city employees must successfully pass a pre-employment Drug Testing as prescribed by the City's Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy. Requirements outlined in this job description may be subject to modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities who are otherwise qualified for employment in this position. However, some requirements may exclude individuals who pose a direct threat or significant risk to the health and safety of themselves or other employees. This job description does not constitute an employment agreement between the Employer and employee and is subject to change as the needs of the Employer and requirements of the job change. Page 48 of 154 EXHIBIT A JOB DESCRIPTION: CIVIL ENGINEER I PAGE 7 OF 7 Salary Scale Civil Engineer I 1/1/2018 After 5 yrs. 38.04 After 4 yrs. 37.11 After 3 yrs. 36.20 After 2 yrs 35.32 After 1 yr. 34.46 After 6 mos. 33.62 First 6 mos. 32.80 Page 49 of 154 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 50 of 154 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: October 9, 2018 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution to Accept the Prepared by: Nicholas Bond, AICP 2017-2018 Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road DCD Director Conceptual Corridor Study Draft Plan Atty Routing No.: 087-17 Atty Review Date: October 1, 2018 Issue: On June 27, 2017, the City entered into a professional services agreement with SCJ Alliance Consulting Services (SCJ) to prepare a draft conceptual study plan for the Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road corridor. In August 2018, SCJ provided the draft plan to the City, and on September 25, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft plan. After considering public comments, the Council requested that the City Attorney prepare a resolution accepting the draft plan as the final work product of SCJ pursuant to the 2017 agreement. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council vote to adopt a resolution accepting the draft conceptual study plan for the Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road corridor as the final work product of SCJ Alliance Consulting Services, pursuant to the 2017 professional services agreement. Motion for Consideration: “I move to adopt a resolution accepting the draft conceptual study plan for the Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road corridor as the final work product of SCJ Alliance Consulting Services, pursuant to the 2017 professional services agreement” Fiscal Impact: N/A Alternatives: Do not approve resolution; direct staff and SCJ to revise the draft plan. Attachments: Resolution, Corridor Plan, and Contract No. 042-17 with SCJ Alliance Consulting Services. Page 51 of 154 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 52 of 154 RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, TO ACCEPT THE 2017-2018 SEDGWICK ROAD (SR 160) AND BETHEL ROAD CONCEPTUAL CORRIDOR STUDY DRAFT PLAN AS THE FINAL WORK PRODUCT OF SHEA, CARR & JEWELL, INC. (DBA SCJ ALLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES) PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the City of Port Orchard entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Shea, Carr & Jewell, Inc. (dba SCJ Alliance Consulting Services) for professional consulting services in connection with the 2017-2018 Sedgwick Road (SR 160) and Bethel Road Conceptual Corridor Study (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, SCJ Alliance Consulting Services provided the City a draft Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan (the “Plan”) in accordance with the parties’ Agreement; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 25, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft Plan; and WHEREAS, after considering comments made during the public hearing on the draft Plan, the City Council has determined to accept the draft Plan, attached as Exhibit A, as the final work product of SCJ Alliance Consulting Services under the parties’ Agreement; now, therefore; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: THAT: The Port Orchard City Council approves the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan as the final work product of Shea, Carr & Jewell, Inc. (dba SCJ Alliance Consulting Services) pursuant to the parties’ 2017 Professional Services Agreement. 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 9th day of October 2018. Robert Putaansuu, Mayor ATTEST: Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk Page 53 of 154 City of Port Orchard October 2018 BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN Exhibit A Page 54 of 154 This page intentionally left blank Page 55 of 154 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 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47 LANDSCAPING ............................................................................................................................................................................ 47 UTILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 48 Page 56 of 154 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: Alternative Analysis Results by Segment ................................................................................................. 22 Table 5: Preliminary Cost Estimates by Project Phase .......................................................................................... 50 Page 57 of 154 Project Overview| 1 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 58 of 154 2 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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. Bethe l 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 points1. 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 59 of 154 Project Overview| 3 Figure: 1 Study Area Map Page 60 of 154 4 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN This page intentionally left blank Page 61 of 154 Public Involvement | 5 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 along the highway and at 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 62 of 154 6 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 63 of 154 Public Involvement | 7 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 64 of 154 8 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN This page intentionally left blank Page 65 of 154 Public Involvement | 9 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 66 of 154 10 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 67 of 154 Public Involvement | 11 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 The project team made a presentation of the alternative evaluation methods and resulting preferred conceptual corridor design. Councilmembers and the Mayor asked questions of the project team but overall, the draft plan was well received. The draft was made available to the public via the project webpage for review and comment until the public hearing scheduled for September 25th, 2018. The project team sent notification of the public review and comment period via email to the project distribution list and posted to the City’s Facebook page. September 25, 2018 – City Council Meeting The City Council held a public hearing at their meeting to hear from members of the public regarding the public review draft of the Bethel and Sedgwick Corridor Plan. Two members of the public spoke about the proposed access control and location of roundabouts. The Council and project team responded to the comments and provided clarifications. Page 68 of 154 12 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN This page intentionally left blank Page 69 of 154 Crash History | 13 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 20172. 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 2 Under 23 U.S. Code § 409 and 23 U.S. Code § 148, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. Page 70 of 154 14 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 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 71 of 154 Crash History | 15 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. There were no reported fatalities on either study corridor over the time period that was analyzed. In addition, there were no reported crashes involving bicyclists on either study corridor over the time period that was analyzed. Table 2 on the following page provides a summary of all reported crashes that involved evident injuries and serious injuries. Page 72 of 154 16 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 73 of 154 Traffic Forecast | 17 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 74 of 154 18 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN This page intentionally left blank Page 75 of 154 Conceptual Design | 19 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 76 of 154 20 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN Intersections with heavy left-turn movements or intersections that are closely spaced make particularly good candidates for roundabouts.3 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.4 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.5 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 3 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide (Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-32. 4 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide (Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-33. 5 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide (Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 2-7. Page 77 of 154 Conceptual Design | 21 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).6 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 congestion or a 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. 6 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide (Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-33. Page 78 of 154 22 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 versus 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, and right-of-way considerations. Table 4 summarizes the results of our alternatives analysis followed by a detailed discussion for each of the three study segments. Table 4: Alternative Analysis Results by 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 79 of 154 Conceptual Design | 23 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 80 of 154 24 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN Sedgwick Roa d (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 candidates7. 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.”8 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. 7 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide (Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 3-32. 8 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 81 of 154 Conceptual Design | 25 This page intentionally left blank Page 82 of 154 26 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 5: Corridor Plan Schematic Page 83 of 154 Conceptual Design | 27 Figure 6: Bethel Road – Typical Section A Figure 7: Bethel Road – Typical Section B Figure 8: Sedgwick Road – Typical Section Page 84 of 154 28 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN This page intentionally left blank Page 85 of 154 Project Phasing | 29 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 7). 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 is very close to meeting the MUTCD peak hour signal warrant (see Appendix E).. 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 86 of 154 30 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 9: Sensitivity Analysis Results Interim and Full -Build Design s 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 87 of 154 Project Phasing | 31 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 88 of 154 32 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 Sedg wick 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 89 of 154 Project Phasing | 33  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 90 of 154 34 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN This page intentionally left blank Page 91 of 154 Design Considerations | 35 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 92 of 154 36 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN difficulty re-entering the flow of traffic which causes service delays and increases the chance of collisions.9 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 design10 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. 9 Kitsap Transit. Bus Stop Design Manual. 10 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An information Guide (Second Edition). Washington, D.C., 2010. Page 93 of 154 Design Considerations | 37 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 bus 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 94 of 154 38 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 11: Study Area Map Page 95 of 154 Design Considerations | 39 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.11 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.12 11 Ewing, Reid. Pedestrian- and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart Growth. Smart Growth Network Manual, 1999. 12 Fehr & Peers on behalf of The City of Port Orchard. Port Orchard Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines. December 2016. Page 96 of 154 40 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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.13 Further bicycle facility design guidance can be found in NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide (Second Edition). 13 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition. New York: Island Press, 2014. Pages 4-8. Page 97 of 154 Design Considerations | 41 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.14 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 possible design concept for the ‘wrap around’ treatment which would only be needed at Type A and Type B bus stop locations. At Type B bus stop locations, the City may also consider a ‘bulb-out’ at the bus stop to allow busses to stay in-lane while picking up or dropping off passengers and discourage vehicles from passing stopped buses on the left. However, this ‘bulb-out’ design would require bicyclists to either use the sidewalk or vehicle lane, even when a bus is not present. 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. 14 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition. New York: Island Press, 2014. Pages 32-33. Page 98 of 154 42 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 99 of 154 Design Considerations | 43 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 100 of 154 44 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN Critical Area s 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 zones with a mountable curb at regularly spaced intervals along the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road raised medians. These clear zones will be free of landscaping and wide enough to accommodate U-turns for emergency vehicles. Recommended spacing is a clear zone every 400-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 101 of 154 Design Considerations | 45 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.15 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. Minimum Spacing Requirements 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. 15 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 102 of 154 46 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 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 improve 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 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. Beth el/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. Page 103 of 154 Design Considerations | 47 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 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. WSDOT has indicated that they will not provide maintenance on any landscaped areas on a state facility, such as SR 160, and will require an agreement with the City to carry out the required maintenance. 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.16 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). 16 City of Seattle, Master Tree List, 2011. <https://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/2011-Master_Tree_List.pdf> Page 104 of 154 48 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 105 of 154 Design Considerations | 49 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 106 of 154 50 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 $11,970,000 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 $53,740,000 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 107 of 154 Funding Strategy | 51 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 108 of 154 52 | BETHEL ROAD AND SEDGWICK ROAD CORRIDOR PLAN 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 109 of 154 Appendices | 53 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 110 of 154 CITY OF PORT ORCHARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS Agreement is made effective as of the 27th day of June 2017. by and between the City of Port Orchard, a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Washington, whose address is: CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON (hereinafter the “CITY”) 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Contact: Mayor Robert Putaansuu Shea, Carr & Jewell, Inc. (dba SCJ Alliance Consulting Services)And 'SGJ Alliance-Consulting Services, a corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Washington, doing business at: Phone: 360.876.4407 Fax: 360.895.9029 (hereinafter the “CONSULTANT”)SCJ Alliance Consulting Services 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 Contact: Eric Johnston, P.E. Vice President/Principal Phone: 360.352.1465 for professional services in connection with the following Project: 2017 - 2018 Sedgwick Road (SR 160) and Bethel Road Conceptual Corridor Study TERMS AND CONDITIONS Services by Consultant.1. Consultant shall perform the services described in the Scope of Work attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A." The services performed by the Consultant shall not exceed the Scope of Work without prior written authorization from the City. A. The City may from time to time require changes or modifications in the Scope of Work. Such changes, including any decrease or increase in the amount of compensation, shall be agreed to by the parties and incorporated in written amendments to the Agreement. B. 2. Schedule of Work. Consultant shall perform the services described in the Scope of Work in accordance with the Tasks identified within Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” as Terms of this Agreement. If delays beyond Consultant's reasonable control occur, the parties will negotiate in good faith to determine whether an extension is appropriate. A. Consultant is authorized to proceed with services upon receipt of a written Notice toB. Proceed. City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW2017-024 Professional Service Agreement Contract No. C042-17 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/20161 of 8 Page 111 of 154 3.Terms. This Agreement shall commence on June 27, 2017 (“Commencement Date”) and shall terminate December 31. 2018 unless extended or terminated in writing as provided herein. Additionally, the City reserves the right to offer two-one year extensions prior to contract expiration to retain the selected company’s services. 4.Compensation. LUMP SUM. Compensation for these services shall be a Lump Sum of $. TIME AND MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED. Compensation for these services shall not exceed 8147,253.00 without written authorization and will be based on the list of billing rates and reimbursable expenses attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” TIME AND MATERIALS. Compensation for these services shall be on a time and material basis according to the list of billing rates and reimbursable expenses attached hereto as Exhibit □X □ □OTHER. 5.Payment. A. Consultant shall maintain time and expense records and provide them to the City monthly after services have been performed, along with monthly invoices in a format acceptable to the City for work performed to the date of the invoice. All invoices shall be paid by City warrant within sixty (60) days of receipt of a proper invoice. If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify the Consultant of the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt and shall pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. B. Consultant shall keep cost records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement available for inspection by City representatives for three (3) years after final payment unless a longer period is required by a third-party agreement. Copies shall be made available on request. C. On the effective date of this Agreement (or shortly thereafter), the Consultant shall comply with all federal and state laws applicable to independent contractors, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and expenses of the Consultant’s business, pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 51.08.195, as required by law, to show that the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-employee relationship between the parties, which is subject to Title 51 RCW, Industrial Insurance. D. If the services rendered do not meet the requirements of the Agreement, Consultant will correct or modify the work to comply with the Agreement. City may withhold payment for such work until the work meets the requirements of the Agreement. E. Discrimination and Compliance with Laws6. Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of race, creed, color, national origin,A. City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW20I7-024 Professional Sendee Agreement Contract No. C042-I7 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/20162 of 8 Page 112 of 154 marital status, sex, age, disability, or other circumstance prohibited by federal, state, or local law or ordinance, except for a bona fide occupational qualification. Even though the Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City’s general right inspection to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state and municipal laws, rules and regulations that are now effective or become applicable within the terms of this Agreement to the Consultant’s business, equipment and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of such operations. B. Consultant shall obtain a City of Port Orchard business license prior to receipt of writtenC. Notice to Proceed. Violation of this Paragraph 6 shall be a material breach of this Agreement and grounds for cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Agreement by City, in whole or in part, and may result in ineligibility for further work for City. D. Relationship of Parties. The parties intend that an independent contractor-client relationship will be created by this Agreement. As the Consultant is customarily engaged in an independently established trade which encompasses the specific service provided to the City hereunder, no agent, employee, representative or sub-consultant of the Consultant shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, representative or sub-consultant of the City. In the performance of the work, the Consultant is an independent contractor with the ability to control and direct the performance and details of the work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives or sub­ consultants of the Consultant. The Consultant will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, representatives and sub-consultants during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work that the Consultant performs hereunder. 7. Suspension and Termination of Agreement8. Termination without cause. This Agreement may be terminated by the City at any time for public convenience, for the Consultant’s insolvency or bankruptcy, or the Consultant’s assignment for the benefit of creditors. A. Termination with cause. The Agreement may be terminated upon the default of the Consultant and the failure of the Consultant to cure such default within a reasonable time after receiving written notice of the default. B. C.Rights Upon Termination. 1. With or Without Cause. Upon termination for any reason, all finished or unfinished documents, reports, or other material or work of Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted to City, and Consultant shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed prior to the date of termination, not to exceed the total compensation set forth herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to any reallocation of City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW2017-024 Professional Service Agreement Contract No. C042-I7 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/20163 of 8 Page 113 of 154 cost, profit or overhead. Consultant shall not in any event be entitled to anticipated profit on work not performed because of such termination. Consultant shall use its best efforts to minimize the compensation payable under this Agreement in the event of such termination. Upon termination, the City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or otherwise. Default. If the Agreement is terminated for default, the Consultant shall not be entitled to receive any further payments under the Agreement until all work called for has been fully performed. Any extra cost or damage to the City resulting from such default(s) shall be deducted from any money due or coming due to the Consultant. The Consultant shall bear any extra expenses incurred by the City in completing the work, including all increased costs for completing the work, and all damage sustained, or which may be sustained by the City by reason of such default. 2. Suspension. The City may suspend this Agreement, at its sole discretion. Any reimbursement for expenses incurred due to the suspension shall be limited to the Consultant's reasonable expenses, and shall be subject to verification. The Consultant shall resume performance of services under this Agreement without delay when the suspension period ends. D. Notice of Termination or Suspension. termination shall be effective immediately upon the Consultant’s receipt of the City’s written notice or such date as stated in the City’s notice of termination, whichever is later. Notice of suspension shall be given to the Consultant in writing upon one week's advance notice to Consultant. Such notice shall indicate the anticipated period of suspension. Notice may also be delivered to the Consultant at the address set forth in Section 15 herein. If delivered to the Consultant in person,E. Standard of Care. Consultant represents and warrants that it has the requisite training, skill and experience necessary to provide the services under this agreement and is appropriately accredited and licensed by all applicable agencies and governmental entities. Services provided by Consultant under this agreement will be performed in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing in similar circumstances. 9. 10. Ownership of Work Product. All data, materials, reports, memoranda, and other documents developed under this Agreement whether finished or not shall become the property of City, shall be forwarded to City at its request and may be used by City as it sees fit. Upon termination of this agreement pursuant to paragraph 8 above, all finished or unfinished documents, reports, or other material or work of the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted to City. Any reuse or modification of such documents, reports or other material or work of the Consultant for purposes other than those intended by the Consultant in its scope of services shall be at the City’s risk and without liability to the Consultant. A. All written information submitted by the City to the Consultant in connection with the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement will be safeguarded by the Consultant to at least the same extent as the Consultant safeguards like information relating to its own business. If such information is publicly available or is already in Consultant’s possession or known to it, or is rightfully obtained by the Consultant from third parties, the Consultant shall bear no responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. The Consultant is permitted to disclose any such information to the extent required by law, subpoena or other court order. B. City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW2017-024 Professional Senice Agreement Contract No. C042-11 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/20164 of 8 Page 114 of 154 Work Performed at the Consultant’s Risk. The Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents and sub-consultants in the performance of the work hereunder, and shall utilize all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at the Consultant’s own risk, and the Consultant shall be responsible for any loss or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held by the Consultant for use in connection with the work. 11. Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in performance of this Agreement, except for injuries or damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. 12. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is Subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and Volunteers, the Consultant's liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE CONSULTANT’S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAfVER. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees. 13. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below: Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-ovvned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. I. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors and personal injury and advertising injury. The City shall be named by endorsement as an additional insured under the Consultant’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City. 2. Workers’ Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. 3. City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW2017-024 Professional Service Agreement Contract No. C.042-17 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/20165 of 8 Page 115 of 154 Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant’s profession.4. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. 2. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. 3. Employer’s Liability each accident $1,000,000, Employer’s Liability Disease each employee $1,000,000, and Employer’s Liability Disease - Policy Limit $1,000,000. 4. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability, Professional Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: The Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 1. The Consultant’s insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 2. The City will not waive its right to subrogation against the Consultant. The Consultant’s insurance shall be endorsed acknowledging that the City will not waive their right to subrogation. The Consultant’s insurance shall be endorse to waive the right of subrogation against the City, or any self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City. 3. If any coverage is written on a “claims made” basis, then a minimum of a three (3) year extended reporting period shall be included with the claims made policy, and proof of this extended reporting period provided to the City. 4. D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. Verification of Coverage City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW2017-024 Professional Service Agreement Contract No. C042-I7 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/20166 of 8 Page 116 of 154 Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work. Assigning or Subcontracting. Consultant shall not assign, transfer, subcontract or encumber any rights, duties, or interests accruing from this Agreement without the express prior written consent of the City, which consent may be withheld in the sole discretion of the City. 14. IS. Notice. Any notices required to be given by the City to Consultant or by Consultant to the City shall be in writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses: CONSULTANT Eric Johnston, P.E. SCJ Alliance Consulting Services 8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200 Lacey, WA 98516 Robert Putaansuu Mayor 216 Prospect Street Port Orchard, WA 98366 Phone: 360.876.4407 Fax: 360.895.9029 Phone: 360.352.1465 16. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. Should any dispute, misunderstanding or conflict arise as to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the matter shall first be referred to the Mayor, who shall determine the term or provision’s true intent or meaning. The Mayor shall also decide all questions which may arise between the parties relative to the actual services provided or to the sufficiency of the performance hereunder. A. If any dispute arises between the City and the Consultant under any of the provisions of this Agreement which cannot be resolved by the Mayor’s determination in a reasonable time, or if the Consultant does not agree with the Mayor’s decision on a disputed matter, jurisdiction of any resulting litigation shall be filed in Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County, Washington. B. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In any suit or action instituted to enforce any right granted in this Agreement, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney’s fees from the other party. C. 17. General Provisions. Non-waiver of Breach. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein contained in one or more instances, shall not be construed.to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements, or options, and the same shall be in full-force and effect., A. Modification. No waiver, alteration, modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and the Consultant. B. City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW2017-024 Professional Service Agreement Contract No. C042-17 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/2016 7 Of 8 Page 117 of 154 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. If any provision of this Agreement is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other provision. C. Entire Agreement. The written provisions of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner whatsoever, the Agreement or the Agreement documents. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto, which may or may not have been dated prior to the execution of this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement and form the Agreement document as fully as if the same were set forth herein. Should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, then this Agreement shall prevail. D. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year set forth above. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON CONSULTANT By: By: Robert Putaansuu Mayor Name: Title: Date:(plziinDate: Attest: By: Branay Rmearson, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: I : SEAL : ICity Attorney City of Port Orchard and SCJ Alliance Consulting Services Public Works Project No. PW2017-024 Professional Service Agreement Contract No. C042-I7 Lighthouse Rev 3/16/20168 of 8 Page 118 of 154 SCJ ALLIANCE CONSULTING SERVICES SCOPE OF WORK SEDGWICK ROAD (SR 160) and BETHEL ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY For City of Port Orchard Prepared for: Prepared By: Mark Dorsey, City Engineer Bob Jewell, PE, Principal Eric Johnston, PE, Principal Date prepared:June 21, 2017 Overview it is our pleasure to provide the following scope of work for SG Alliance (SG) to provide planning, engineering and public outreach services for the proposed Sedgwick Road (SR 160) and Bethel Road Corridor Study. The corridor study will evaluate access and circulation needs and identify optimal intersection locations and control treatment, commercial access requirements, and road sections needed to accommodate future development of vacant properties between SR 16 and Bethel Road, in addition, this study will revisit previous corridor study efforts including frontage road connections along Bethel Road. Phase 10 - Project Management i his phase includes tasks to plan, manage, and administer the work. Task 1 Management 1) Overall Management: Manage the project by directing and supervising staff and reviewing work for the duration of the project. 2) Schedule: Develop a critical path project schedule to match the scope of work. Review and update the schedule on a monthly basis. 3) Coordination: Coordination with stakeholders and subconsultants. 4) Communication Plan: Prepare project stakeholder contact list. Prepare and maintain a Communication Log which will include documentation of emails, written 06/06/2017 Page 1 of 6 Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Corridor Study Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 119 of 154 06/21/2017 Page 2 of 7 correspondence, and telephone conversations with WSDOT, Kitsap County and other stakeholders. 5) QA/QC: Senior level review of task deliverables before submittals and also include quality check activities on a periodic basis Task 2 Administration 1)Progress Reports: Prepare and submit a monthly progress report. Progress reports will show: (1) prior work performed, (2) current work planned, (3) schedule and budget status (including a 3-line earned value chart), (4) a summary of scope changes/added value, and (5) items needed from the CITY or others. Progress Billings: Prepare a monthly progress bill with monthly progress report attached. Filing/Correspondence: Develop a project filing system and maintain project files in one centralized location. Periodically purge draft and redundant documents. Prepare project correspondence such as letters and transmittals. 2) 3) Understanding • Project Management will include the rest of 2017 and approximately half of 2018. • Progress billings will be submitted monthly. • Timelines and milestones will be outlined in a master schedule using Microsoft Project and will be updated for each progress billing. Deliverables Monthly Progress Report Progress billings submitted monthly MS Project schedule/updates Communication Plan Miscellaneous correspondence Phase 20 - Project Meetings This phase will be for project meetings with the City, Kitsap County and/or WSDOT. Task l City Meetings 1) City Meetings: The number of meetings are based on meeting in person at the City. 2) Conference Calls: Conduct Web based meetings (i.e. Go-to-Meeting) an average of once a month fora duration of five (5)-calendar quarters (15 total). Task 2 WSDOT Meetings These meetings include participation with WSDOT, on various topics. 1) WSDOT Meetings: Attend up to four (4) other meetings with WSDOT to discuss SR 160 corridor elements. Task 3 Meeting Preparation and Summaries Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Corridor Study Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 120 of 154 06/21/2017 Page 3 of 7 1) Meeting Preparation and Summaries: Prepare meeting agendas and summaries for ail meetings. Understanding • This assumes up to four coordination meetings in Port Orchard with the project team. • WSDOT meeting will be convened at the WSDOT Olympic Region Headquarters. Deliverables 1) Meeting Agendas and Summaries Phase 30 - Alternative Analysis & Public Outreach This phase will evaluate mobility on Sedgwick Road from SR 16 to Bethel Road, and on Bethel Road from Sedgwick to SR 166. Analysis will ensure the proposed network and design will accommodate current and future multimodal mobility needs. This includes conceptual design alternatives that accommodate all modes of travel and which support adopted City policies and standards. Analysis will factor in the access and circulation needs for prototypical development types associated with the underlying zoning of vacant properties. Analysis will include operational performance of the conceptual design alternatives with a more intensified "mixed- use center" at Bethel and Sedgwick, a land use pattern not currently in the model but envisioned by the City. Community engagement will provide input on alternative cross sections and intersection control types and treatments, as well as targeted outreach to key property owners. Task 1 Preparation for Analysis 1) Model Review: Review existing travel demand model output (plots and turning movements) as well as outputs for one alternative scenario incorporating a "mixed-use center" at Bethel and Sedgwick. 2) Data Collection: Collect crash data for the most current five years. Analyze data for trends. Conduct site visit and take and catalog photos along the two corridors. 3) Development Forecast Review: Collect and review available development forecasts for the vacant properties along the study corridor and develop trip generation estimates appropriate for use in this analysis. 4) Traffic Volume Forecasts: Develop current year and 2040 design year horizon AM and PM peak hour traffic volume forecasts for the existing land use scenario and for one alternative that includes a mixed-use center at Bethel and Sedgwick. Task 2 Access and Circulation Analysis 1) Operational Analysis: This work will evaluate multimodal circulation and access needs for the corridor. • Develop Synchro model for study area and SIDRA for the roundabout intersection analyses. • Evaluate system performance for current and 2040 horizon years of the alternate networks, applying approved growth assumptions and using the following performance metrics: LOS, delay, v/c ratio, queueing and safety. If warranted, Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Corridor Study Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 121 of 154 06/21/2017 Page 4 of 7 evaluate operational benefits of parallel road(s) along Bethel between Lund and Salmonberry. 2) Technical Memorandum: Prepare technical memorandum documenting the data, analysis, and findings. Task 3 Community Engagement Process 1) Property Owner Outreach: Working with the City, identify key property owners for targeted outreach. Purpose of this outreach is to update them on the corridor study, provide an early opportunity for them to share their perspectives on the study and other concerns, and establish an open line of communication. 2) Public Meeting Preparation: Clarify the City's objectives for the community engagement process and preferred approach. Conduct preparatory logistics including coordination with venue provider and notifications. Prepare format, agenda, presentation, and exhibits for two public meetings. Exhibits will include: ® Rendered roadway cross section concepts for both corridors ® A corridor "fly-through" graphic presentation from the NB ramp terminal at SR 16 to Bethel Road • Rendered concepts for roundabouts. 3) Conduct Public Meeting: Conduct up to two (2) public meetings including meeting facilitation and recap. 4) Council Briefing: Provide support for a briefing to the City Council summarizing the corridor study findings and results from the public meetings. For the meeting, prepare a corridor "fly-through" graphic presentation. 5) Community Engagement Recap: Prepare a document recapping the community engagement process for the project record. Understanding 1) TSI is the City's modeling consultant and maintains the City's travel demand model. The City will provide TSI a 2040 "mixed-use center" alternative land use scenario reflecting potential changes in designation in the vicinity of Bethel and Sedgwick/SR 160 to augment the existing model scenario. TSI will complete all travel demand forecasting and operational analysis using available VISUM, Synchro, and SIDRA models. 2) Additional traffic counts will not be required. 3) Analysis will be conducted for the AM and PM peak periods. The 2040 scenario will be consistent with the City's Transportation Element and WSDOT SR 16 Congestion Study. 4) City will provide TSI with development assumptions different from the current Comprehensive Plan modelled land use for the vacant parcels on Sedgwick. 5) Previous plans to maintain Bethel with a three-lane cross-section included assumptions about two parallel routes between Lund Avenue and Salmonberry Road. SCJ will work with TSI to understand what role, if any, those two parallel routes play in the existing Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Corridor Study Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 122 of 154 06/21/201 7 Page 5 of 7 travel demand model in order to assess interdependencies between the operational performance of Bethel and those routes. If warranted, implications for Bethel if those routes are not built as originally planned will be identified and addressed in the operational analysis and conceptual design. 6) This work does not include design-level roadway or intersection geometries. 7) Roundabout conceptual design will utilize City prepared drawings currently available. Deliverables 1)Intersection turning movement counts Crash data Current and 2040 travel forecasts Synchro and/or SIDRA models for the study area Current and 2040 operational analysis of up to two corridor configurations Technical memorandum describing analysis and recommendations Public meetings, including exhibits, presentation, and recap City Council briefing materials 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Phase 40 Conceptual Stormwater Management Stormwater management areas will be estimated forthe future corridor improvements. Sub­ basins will be identified and analyzed at a "10,000-foot" level based on Lidar or other contour information that may be available. Stormwater MemorandumTask 1 Sub-Basin Mapping: Identify drainage sub-basins. Develop mapping for the drainage sub basins. 1) Preliminary Stormwater Memorandum: Prepare a Preliminary Stormwater Memorandum that will identify approximate stormwater management areas and sizing needs. Final Stormwater Memorandum: Update memorandum per City comments and prepare a Final Stormwater Memorandum. 2) 3) Understanding o Stormwater management facility conceptual location and sizing will be based on the City of Port Orchard Stormwater Standards that are effective as of 2017. Deliverables e Preliminary Stormwater Memorandum * Final Stormwater Memorandum Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Corridor Study Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 123 of 154 06/21/2017 Page 6 of 7 Phase 50 Right-Of-Way & Construction Cost Estimating Work under this phase consists of estimating right-of-way needs along the two corridors. The corridors will be separated into segments as individual projects, with construction cost estimating performed for the segments. Task l Right-of-Way Exhibits 1) Right-of-Way Exhibits: Identify conceptual right-of-way needs along the two corridors. Prepare exhibits. Task 2 Construction Segment Cost Estimating 1} Construction Costs: Determine preliminary limits for segment construction. Prepare planning level cost estimates for each segment. Understanding • New right-of-way needs will be estimated using Kitsap County parcel mapping as a basis for existing right-of-way. Deliverables » Conceptual Right-of-way Exhibits • Planning Level Construction Segment Cost Estimates Phase 60 Subconsultants SG will contract with TSI as a subconsultant to provide transportation model outputs and other data that has been prepared to date. SG will use the data output for analysis of alternatives. Task 1 Traffic Forecasting and Analysis (See above.) Task 3 Implementation Strategies 1) TSI will review the City's impact fee to determine if adjustments are necessary to support financing the project. 2) TSI will recommend potential financing sources in addition to impact fees including but not limited to Local Improvement District feasibility, fee in lieu of frontage improvements, and grant strategies. 3) TSI will recommend a phasing plan for the project based upon the travel demand forecasts and anticipated rate development such that improvements are timed to match needs as development occurs, rather than fragmented frontage improvements as development occurs. Deliverables ® Transportation Model output data • LOS and operational analysis data • Channelization phasing plan recommendations • Recommended financing sources Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Corridor Study Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 124 of 154 06/21/2017 Page 7 of 7 • Review of impact fees • Other pertinent data that has been created to date Phase 99 Reimbursable Expenses Direct expenses for SG project-related items, such as travel, printing, aerial photography, etc., will be billed as a separate reimbursable expense perSG's General Conditions of Contract. Attachments: Exhibit B - Hourly Fee Estimate and Consultant Determination Fee Estimate END OF SCOPE OF WORK Sedgwick Road and Bethel Road Corridor Study Exhibit A - Scope of Work Page 125 of 154 Consultant Fee Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study Job#: P2079.01 Fils *: Consultant Foe Determination DIRECT LABOR REVENUE Piscinllne Principal Engineer (Dob) Principal Engineer (Eric) Project Manager (Patrick) Senior Designer (Kano) Transportation Planner (Elisabeth) Transportation Planner (Ryan) Senior Transportation Planner (George) Project Accountant (Maddle) Project Coordinator (Davldl__________ Houra Rata Amount $7,755 $33,500 $11,920 $17,250 $33,600 $15,120 $2,480 $1,140 S4,000 33 $235 146 $230 84 $142 ISO $115 320 $105 126 $120 16 $155 12 $95 50 $90 Subtotal:937 $126,853 INDIRECT COSTS Subconsultant Fees:Transportation Solutions Inc (TSI) 1S% SCI Subconsultant Administrative Fee $16,000 $2.400 Subtotal SIB,400 Expenses (Phase 99):Copies,Aerials, Reproductions,Mileage, Travel,Traffic Counts.etr $2,000 Total Estimated Fee:$147,253 SCJ ALLIANCE 6/21/2017 Page 1 Page 126 of 154 EXHIBIT B Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study SCJ#: P2078.01 Bob Patrick ElisabethEric MaddieKanoRyanGeorge David Principal Engineer Senior Designer \PhasefTask Principal Engineer Project Manager Transp. Planner Transp. Planner Sr. Trans Planner Project Accountant Project CoordinatorTask Description Total HoursNo. PHASE 10 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.0 Management 24 42Overall Management 161.1 2 15Schedule121.2 1 2 12 21Coordination1.3 81 15Communication Plan 121.4 1 2 14QA/QC1.5 2 12 Administration2.0 6 14Progress Reports/PlanTrax2.1 2 6 12 12 322.2 Progress Billings 2 6 221282.3 Filing/Correspondence 2 12 30 17568Phase 10 Total Hours:5411 12 30 17568Phaso 10 Total:5411 $95$155$120 $80$115$115Rate por Hour $142$235 $230 $1,140 $2,400 $26,365$7,820Estimated Cost by Category $2,585 $12,420 6/21/2017 SO Alliance 1 of 7 Page 127 of 154 EXHIBIT B Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study SCJ#: P2078.01 Bob PatrickEric Kano Elisabeth Ryan MaddieGeorge David Principal Engineer Principal Engineer Project Manager Senior Designer \Phase/Task Transp. Planner Transp. Planner Sr. Trans Planner Project Accountant Project CoordinatorTask Description Total HoursNo. PHASE 20-MEETINGS 1.0 [City Meetings City Meetings (4)4 141.1 14 32 Conference Calls 2 81.2 8 4 22 WSDOT Meetings2.0 2.1 WSDOT Meetings (4 meetings)2 8 8 18 Meeting Preparation and Summaries3.0 Meeting Agendas and Summaries 23.1 4 24 388 Phase 20 Total Hours:10 34 32 110268 Phase 20 Toial. l 3410 32 26 8 no Rate per Hour $235 $230 $115$142 $115 $120 $155 $95 $80 Estimated Cost by Category.$2,350 $7,820 $3,680 $17,610$3,120 $640 6/21/2017SO Alliance 2 of 7 Page 128 of 154 EXHIBIT B Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study SCJ#: P2078.01 Bob Patrick ElisabethEricKano Ryan Maddie DavidGeorge Principal Engineer Senior Designer Sr. Trans Planner \Phase/Task Principal Engineer Project Manager Transp. Planner Transp. Planner Project Accountant Project CoordinatorTask Description Total HoursNo. PHASE 30 - ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS & PUBLIC OUTREACH [preparation for Analysis1.0 Model Review1.1 2 8 4 14 Data Collection1.2 8 16 8 4 36 Development Forecast Review1.3 8 4 12 Traffic Volume Forecasts1.4 8 4 12 Access and Circulation Analysis2.0 2.1 Operational Analysis 162 4 22 Technical Memorandum2.2 6 880 94 Community Engagement Process3.0 Property Owner Outreach3.1 16 24 40 Public Meeting Preparation3.2 4 60 60 32 8 164 3.3 Conduct Public Meeting (2 Meetings)8 12 1212 44 Council Briefing3.4 44 12 8 28 Community Engagement Recap3.5 2 12 14 Phase 30 Total Hours:12 56 72 212 100 16 12 480 SO Alliance 3 of 7 6/21/2017 Page 129 of 154 EXHIBIT B Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study SCJ#: P2078.01 Bob Patrick ElisabethEricKano Ryan MaddieGeorge David Principal Engineer Principal Engineer Transp. Planner Project Manager Senior Designer Transp. Planner Sr. Trans Planner Project Accountant iPhase/Task Project CoordinatorTask Description Total HoursNo. Phase 30 Total:12 56 72 212 100 16 12 480 Rale per Hour $115$235 $230 $142 $115 $120 $155 $95 $80 Estimated Cost by Category:$2,820 $12,880 $8,280 $24,380 $12,000 $2,480 $960 $63,800 4 of 7SO Alliance 6/21/2017 Page 130 of 154 EXHIBIT B Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study SCJ#: P2078.01 Bob PatrickEric Elisabeth MaddieXanoGeorge OavidRyan \Phase/Task Principal Engineer Principal Engineer Project Manager Senior Designer Transp. Planner Transp. Planner Sr. Trans Planner Project Accountant Project | CoordinatorTask Description Total HoursNo. PHASE 40 - CONCEPTUAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1.0 Stormwater Report 12Sub-Basin Mapping 61.1 18 Preliminary Storm Memorandum 321.2 32 41.3 Final Storm Memorandum 8 12 4526Phase 50 Total Hours:62 6 452Phase 40 Total:62 $115 $120$115 $155$142 $95Rate per Hour!$230 $80$235 $460$7,384 $690Estimated Cost by Category $8,534 SO Alliance 5 of 7 6/21/2017 Page 131 of 154 EXHIBIT B Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study SCJ#: P2078.01 Bob Patrick ElisabethEricKano Ryan George Maddie David Principal Engineer Senior Designer Principal Engineer Project Manager Transp. Planner \Phase/Task Transp Planner Sr. Trans Planner Project Accountant Project CoordinatorTask Description Total HoursNo. PHASE 50 - RIGHT-OF-WAY & CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATING Right-of-Way Exhibits1.0 Right-of-Way Exhibits 401.01 16 56 Construction Segment Cost Estimating2.0 Construction Cost Estimating2.1 2 32 416 54 Phase 50 Total Hours:32 72 42 110 Phase SO Total:2 32 72 4 110 $115Rato per Hour $235 $230 $142 $115 $120 $155 $95 $80 Estimated Cost by Category $460$460 $4,544 $8,280 $13,744 SCJ Alliance 6 of 7 6/21/2017 Page 132 of 154 EXHIBIT B Labor Hour Estimate SCJ Alliance Client: City of Port Orchard Project: Port Orchard Corridor Study SCJ#: P2076.01 Eric Patrick ElisabethBobKano Ryan George Maddie Davie Pnase/Task Principal Principal Project Senior Tramp. Engineer Engineer Manager Designer Planner Transp. Planner Sr. Trans Planner Project Accountant Project CoordinatorTask Description Total HoursNo. PHASE 60 - SUBCONSULTANTS i Subconsultant Services1.0 Transportation Solutions Inc. (TSl) (see Fee Determination)1.1 Phase 60 Total Hours: Phaso 60 Total:] $115 $115 $120 $95 $80$155$142$230$235Rate per Hour. Estimated Cost by Category: 93732012616125016084146Total hours AU Pnasesl 33 6/21/20177 of 7SO Alliance Page 133 of 154 Page 134 of 154 Page 1 of 10MRSC Rosters Public Agency Name: Roster Type: Date: Time: Main Category: City of Port Orchard Consultant Roster 04/28/2017 07:13 am Architectural Services, Communication and Media Services, Design and Planning, Engineering Services Streetscape Improvement, Public Involvement Process and Support, Multi-modal Transportation Planning and Analysis, Transit Planning and Design (including High Capita Transit), Transportation/Traffic Sub-Category: 3 Square Blocks 501 CONSULTANTS. INC 1972 A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC Abeyta Adekoya Business Consulting LLC Advisian a WorleyParsons Group Inc. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. AHBL, Inc. Akana Allied 8 PLLC Alta Planning + Design Amec Foster Wheeler Anchor QEA, LLC AOR International LLC Apex Engineering ARC Architects Architects Rasmussen Triebelhorn, AlA/ps Art Anderson Associates ht1ps://members.nu,scrosters.org/public-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 135 of 154 Page 2 of 10MRSC Rosters atelierjones lie Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. Baylis Architects BCRA, Inc BDS Planning & Urban Design Beckwith Consulting Group Belsby Engineering BergerABAM Berger Partnership BERK Blue Architecture LLC Blue Environmental Associates Braaksma Engineering Inc. Bridgeview Consulting, LLC Broadview Planning, LLC Bruce Dees & Associates BST Associates BuildingWork Calvin Jordan Associates, Inc. Cardno CASCADE DESIGN COLLABORATIVE, INC Cascadia Consulting Group CEKO CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc. CHS Engineers Cocker Fennessy Collins Engineers, Inc. https://members.xnrscrostcrs.org/public-agcncy/rosters/result7rt~czoxJVlDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 136 of 154 Page 3 of 10MRSC Rosters CollinsWoerman Columbia Telecommunications Corporation Communication Resources Northwest, LLC Community Attributes Inc. Confluence Environmental Company Conservation Technix, Inc. Contract Land Staff, LLC Cook Engineering and Development Services PLLC Core Design, Inc. CORROSION Mitigation COWI North America Inc. CPD Solutions CPH Consultants CREA Affiliates. LLC CTS Engineers David Evans and Associates, Inc. Davido Consulting Group, Inc. DCI Engineers DGK Inc. dba Widener & Associates DiMella Shaffer DKS Associates DN Traffic Consultants DOWL LLC, D.B.A. DOWL Dull Olson Weekes - IBI Group Architects Duncanson Company, Inc. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC Ecological Land Services, Inc. https://members.mrscrosters.org/puhlic-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 137 of 154 Page 4 of 10MRSC Rosters Ecolution, LLC ECONorthwest ECO Resource Group Eldred & Associates, LLC Elliott Bay Design Group elm environments Elway Research, Inc EMC RESEARCH, INC Emily Russell Landscape Architecture Entitlement and Engineering Solutions, Inc. ESA ^ Exeltech Consulting, Inc. FCS GROUP ^ Fehr & Peers Fischer Bouma Partnership Forest Clouds LLC Gabbert Architects Planners GAYNOR, Inc. GeoEngineers Inc. GGLO GHD Inc. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. Global Transportation Engineering Corporation Golder Associates Inc. Goldsmith Goldstreet Design Agency, Inc Good Company https://members.rarscrosters.org/public-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 138 of 154 Page 5 of 10MRSC Rosters Gray and Osborne, Inc. Grette Associates LLC Hansen Design Harmsen & Associates, Inc. Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Heartland LLC Heath & Associates, Inc. Heffron Transportation, Inc. Helix Design Group, Inc. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Hill International, Inc. HKP architects HLA Engineering and Land Surveying, Inc. HMA Engineering Hough Beck & Baird Inc. (HBB) Huitt-Zollars, Inc. HWA GeoSciences Inc. ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. Informed Land Survey Integral Consulting Inc Intravaia Risk Management Group LLC J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC J2 Building Consultants, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. JayRay Ads & PR Jerome W. Morrissette & Associates Inc., P.S. https://members.mrscrosters.org/public-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 139 of 154 MRSC Rosters Page 6 of 10 JKLA Landscape Architects Johnson+Southerland, architects, landscape architects & planners Jones & Jones Architects + Landscape Architects + Planners J Robertson and Company KBA, Inc. Keller Associates, Inc. Kidder Mathews Kindred Hydro, Inc. King Technologies, PLLC Kleinfelder KPFFConsulting Engineers Kulshan Services LLC Landau Associates Larson & Associates, Inc. LCA Leland Consulting Group, Inc. Leslie Engineering, LLC LMN Architects Lochner (H.W. Lochner) Logan Simpson Long Bay Enterprises, Inc. Loving Engineering & Consulting, P.S. Inc. LPD Engineering PLLC MacKay Sposito MacLearnsberry, Inc. MacLeod Reckord, Pile MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design LLP htt.ps://members.mrscrosters.org/public-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 140 of 154 MRSC Rosters Page 7 of 10 Mammoth Agency Mariano and Associates Design inc. Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc. Mead & Hunt, inc. Merritt Arch PLLC MICHAEL F.WNEK.PE., PS Michael Terrell Landscape Architecture, PLLC MIG, Inc. MIG | SvR MILES YANICK & COMPANY Miller Consulting Moffatt & Nichol Morrison-Maierle, Inc. MULTIFACET GROUP Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. N.L Olson & Associates, Inc. Nakano Associates Normandeau Associates, Inc. Northwest Research Group, LLC O'Brien & Company Olympic Technology, Inc Opsis Architecture LLP Osborn Consulting Inc Otak, Inc. PACE Engineers, Inc. Pacific Engineering & Design, PLLC Pacific Surveying & Engineering Services, Inc. PSE https://members.mrscrosters.org/puhl i c-agency/rosters/resiilt?rt=czoxMDoi Y29uc3 VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 141 of 154 Page 8 of 10MRSC Rosters Parametrix Pavement Services, Inc. PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. Peninsula Urban Forestry Perteet Inc. PH Consulting LLC PND Engineers, Inc. ProjectCorps PRR Pulse Consulting Rain Dog Designs, LLC. Reichhardt & Ebe Engineering, Inc. Reid Middleton, Inc. ■ |t* RH2 Engineering, Inc RHC Engineering Inc. Rice Fergus Miller Richard VanDeMark, Landscape Architect. Inc., PS RMC Architects, PLLC Robert W. Droll, Landscape Architect, PS Rolluda Architects, Inc. Schacht Aslani Architects Schemata Workshop, Inc. Schemmer Consulting Group PLLC SCJ Alliance/Shea Carr Jewell SDA SDS Municipal Consulting LLC Seahurst Electric, Inc. https://members.mrscrosters.org/public-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 142 of 154 Page 9 of 10MRSC Rosters Sealaska Environmental Services, LLC Shiels Obletz Johnsen, Inc. Shockey Planning Group, Inc. Site Workshop Landscape Architecture Sitts & Hill Engineers, Inc. Skillings Connolly, Inc. SLA Landscape Architecture, LLC SoundEarth Strategies, Inc. Sound Municipal Consultants Stantec Stell Environmental Studio Cascade, Inc. SWCA Environmental Consultants Swift Company T-0 Engineers TCA Architecture Planning, Inc TCF Architecture, PLLC Terracon Consultants, Inc. jy - Tetra Tech, Inc. The Athena Group, LLC The Beckett Group The Driftmier Architects, P.S. The Fearey Group. Inc. The Greenbusch Group, Inc. The Watershed Company THG LLC Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. https://members.mrscrosters.org/public-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29ucWsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 143 of 154 MRSC Rosters Page 10 of 10 Toole Design Group LLC Tovar Planning Toyer Strategic Consulting, LLC Transpo Group Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Transportation Solutions, Inc. TranTech Engineering, LLC Tres West Engineers Triangle Associates, Inc. UPWARD, LLC Urban Systems Design LLC VIA Architecture Vireo Design Studio, LLC Wallendahl Group LLC Wallis Engineering Weber Thompson WestSound Engineering, Inc. WHPacific, Inc. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff https://members.mrscrosters.org/public-agency/rosters/result?rt=czoxMDoiY29uc3VsdGF... 4/28/2017 Page 144 of 154 City of Port Orchard Council Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting of September 25, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor 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 Absent Councilmember Cucciardi Present Councilmember Diener Absent Councilmember Lucarelli Present Councilmember Rosapepe Present Mayor Putaansuu Present Staff present: Public Works Director Dorsey, Community Development Director Bond, Police Chief Marti, City Attorney Cates, City Clerk Rinearson, and Deputy City Clerk Floyd. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Putaansuu led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: By Councilmember Cucciardi, seconded by Councilmember Ashby, to excuse Councilmember Diener due to business obligations. The motion carried. MOTION: By Councilmember Ashby, seconded by Councilmember Cucciardi, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried. 3. CITIZENS COMMENTS Jeff Daily voiced his concerns with the South Kitsap resolution, noting this is the 4th vote, and it is the wrong solution. It is not gaining support. Page 145 of 154 Minutes of September 25, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Amy Miller does not know where the misinformation comes from. She thanks Council for their support. Bob Showers has not yet decided how he is voting, but he does have concerns about how the school board has presented this. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Check Nos. 75202 through 75279 totaling $393,943.13; and Bi-Weekly Payroll including Check Nos. 148040 through 148053 totaling $401,138.07. B. Approval of the September 11, 2018 Council Meeting Minutes C. Approval of an Amended Interlocal Agreement with Kitsap County, City of Bainbridge Island, City of Bremerton, City of Poulsbo, Suquamish Tribe, and the Port Gamble S’Kallam Tribe for “RideAlong” Software (Contract No. 050-18) D. Excusal of Councilmember Clauson Due to a Business Obligation E. New Item: Excusal of Councilmember Diener Due to Business Obligations MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Chang, to approve the consent agenda as amended. The motion carried. 5. PRESENTATION A. West Sound Treatment Center Evans Calas and Clair, with West Sound Treatment Center, thanked Council for the Recovery Month proclamation and helping to spread awareness about alcohol and drug recovery. They briefly discussed what their organization does for the community. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Plan Community Development Director Bond showed an abbreviated version of the Bethel Road and Sedgwick Road Corridor Study presentation, which was previously shown to Council. Mayor Putaansuu opened the public hearing at 6:55pm. Penny Pepis said her family owns a piece of commercial property on Bethel and Piperberry and questions the no left turn option. If the City is trying to encourage commercial growth in that area, not having that left turn lane may dissuade that growth. Page 146 of 154 Minutes of September 25, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Brandon Hineman said the proposed plan has 7 or 8 roundabouts, but we could limit them to 5. The roundabouts at Ramsey and Blueberry only benefit a small density of houses. There being no more testimony, Mayor Putaansuu closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Community Development Director Bond clarified that Ramsey is too close to Bethel for a roundabout and Geiger is too steep of a hill, so there is a new road proposed halfway up the hill with access to adjacent properties. Elisabeth Wooten, SCJ Alliance, provided an overview of the bike lanes, and let Council know this would be the time to ask questions on the project. Council and staff continued discussion on transit and bike safety; left turn options; and roundabouts. 7. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Adoption of a Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 030-17 and Establishing Fee Schedules for the Departments of Community Development and Public Works MOTION: By Councilmember Ashby, seconded by Councilmember Cucciardi, to adopt a Resolution repealing, Resolution 030-17, and establishing fee schedules for the departments of Community Development and Public Works as presented. The motion carried. (Resolution No. 046-18) B. Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the South Kitsap School District No. 402 Levy and Bond Ballot Measures At 7:15 p.m. Councilmember Rosapepe recused himself as he is an employee of South Kitsap School District. MOTION: By Councilmember Cucciardi, seconded by Councilmember Ashby, to adopt a Resolution supporting South Kitsap School District No. 402 Proposition No. 1 Bond to Build Second High School, and Proposition No. 2 Capital Projects Levy to address urgent safety and security, facility projects, and technology needs at all schools. The motion carried. (Resolution No. 047-18) Councilmember Rosapape returned to the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Page 147 of 154 Minutes of September 25, 2018 Page 4 of 6 C. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Contract with Olson Brothers Pro-Vac, LLC for Stormwater Catch Basin & Pipe Maintenance MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Rosapepe, to adopt a Resolution approving a Contract with Olson Brothers Pro-Vac for the 2018 Stormwater Catch Basin & Pipe Maintenance Contract in the amount not to exceed $69,510.33. The motion carried. (Resolution No. 045-18) D. Approval of Amended Change Order No. 3 to Contract No. 037-17 with Active Construction Inc. for the Tremont Street Widening Project MOTION: By Councilmember Ashby, seconded by Councilmember Cucciardi, to approve amended Change Order No. 3 with Active Construction, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $141,592.77. Councilmember Chang noted that although he is a DOT [Department of Transportation] employee, this is not a contracted change order with DOT. For appearance of fairness, if anyone feels he would be biased, he would recuse himself. As no one responded, Councilmember Chang will vote on the motion. The motion carried. E. Discussion: Letter to Kitsap County Mayor Putaansuu said he received a letter from Kitsap County requesting us to assist in funding the debt repayment for the Norm Dicks Government Conference Center. In response, he drafted a letter and provided it to the Finance Committee to review. He then read the letter into the record, which respectfully declined the County’s request. Councilmember Cucciardi offered a few clerical revisions to the letter. MOTION: By Councilmember Lucarelli, seconded by Councilmember Cucciardi, to send this letter, presented by Mayor Putaansuu, to the Kitsap County Commissioners regarding the Housing Kitsap funding request. The motion carried. Page 148 of 154 Minutes of September 25, 2018 Page 5 of 6 8. REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES Councilmember Ashby reported the Economic Development and Tourism committee is scheduled for October 8th. Councilmember Lucarelli reported on the September 17th Utilities committee. The next meeting is scheduled for October 15th. She asked staff to confirm if the Sewer Advisory committee meeting date is scheduled for October 10th or the 17th. She also gave an update on the Chimes & Lights event and noted the next meeting is scheduled for October 15th. Councilmember Chang reported on the September 24th Land Use committee meeting. Councilmember Rosapepe reported the Lodging Tax Advisory committee is scheduled for September 27th. Mayor Putaansuu reported the AWC Regional meeting is scheduled for October 4th here in Port Orchard; Councilmember Ashby stated the KRCC Legislative Reception is scheduled for November 29th. 9. REPORT OF MAYOR Mayor Putaansuu reported on the following: • Had lunch with Randy Screws and Jerry Lundberg; • This week is Fall Clean Up; • Toured McCormick Village Park; • Echo Court bid; • Biennial Budget; • Loan agreement for Marina Pump Station; • Attended Mayor’s Exchange in Walla Walla; and • Attended the AWC Board Retreat. 10. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS Public Works Director Dorsey reported on an application the City received for the Engineering position; [Segment 3] of the Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway is wrapping up; and provided updates on the Tremont Street widening project. Community Development Director Bond reported on his attendance at the annual Planning Directors conference. Page 149 of 154 Minutes of September 25, 2018 Page 6 of 6 City Attorney Cates reported we are starting labor negotiations. City Clerk Rinearson reported on the Kitsap Harbor Tours invoice, and she will be attending AWC’s Risk Management training. Mayor Putaansuu gave a brief report on the single use plastic bag ban survey. 11. CITIZENS COMMENTS Gerry Harmon voiced her concerns with citizens having to pay for their bags. This is just another charge on citizens. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION No executive session was held. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. No other action was taken. Audio/Visual was successful. Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk Robert Putaansuu, Mayor Page 150 of 154 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 7E Meeting Date: October 9, 2018 Subject: Discussion of the Lodging Tax Advisory Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC Committee’s Recommendation for the City Clerk 2019 Funding Allocation Atty Routing No.: N/A Atty Review Date: N/A Summary: On September 27, 2018, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee heard presentations from applicants who are requesting funds for 2019, from the Hotel Motel Tax. On October 4, 2018, the Committee met to discuss the applications and to provide the Council with a recommendation of the allocations of funds. Staff is looking for direction from the Council as to, if they want to bring this item forward at the next Council meeting for adoption or bring this item to the next Council Work Study Session for further discussion. Recommendation: N/A Motion for consideration: N/A Fiscal Impact: $100,000 is the anticipated revenue to be collected in 2019. Alternatives: Reject the allocations and send back to Committee for further deliberation. Attachments: Spreadsheet of Recommended Allocations, September 27, 2018, LTAC Minutes, and October 4, 2018, LTAC Minutes (minutes to be provided prior to the Council meeting). Page 151 of 154 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 152 of 154 Hotel/Motel Funding Requests & Allocations Organization/Event FY' 2019 Funds Requested Committee Recommendation FY' 2018 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY' 2017 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY' 2016 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY' 2015 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2014 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2013 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2012 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2011 Funds Requested Funds Allocated Arthritis Foundation-Jingle Bell Run $0 $1,500 $814 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 Audubon's Great WA Birding Trail $0.00 $5,000 $0 Bremerton Historic Ships $0.00 $12,000 $0 $7,500 $500 Cedar Cove Association $0.00 $5,000 $0 $10,000 $1,000 $17,500 $6,400 $11,500 $6,390 City- Economic Development/Tourism Committee $0.00 $4,500 $0 $5,500 $1,550 $25,500 $4,000 $7,500 $3,550 City-Festival of Chimes and Lights $0.00 $12,000 $7,600 $5,500 $4,500 $15,000 $9,318 $13,500 $0 $11,000 $5,000 $0 $9,400 $10,000 $3,550 City-Foot Ferry Services $6,500 $6,500 $8,000 $6,300 $9,500 $9,500 $9,000 $9,000 $11,500 $10,571 $6,500 $6,500 $7,700 $10,500 $0 $4,000 $3,000 $2,840 City- Police/PW OT $0.00 $14,931.63 $0 $9,300 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $4,000 $0 $5,000 $9,457 $0 City - Wayfinding Signs $0.00 $20,000 $0 City- Waterfront Restrooms $0.00 Concerts by the Bay $0.00 $9,000 $7,750 $9,000 $3,500 $7,500 $6,250 $7,500 $3,750 $5,000 $4,970 Fathoms O’Fun Festival- Events/Marketing $34,500 $28,000 $30,000 $20,814 $24,000 $22,000 $16,750 $12,000 $17,750 $15,916 $11,500 $10,000 $11,500 $7,620 $10,500 $6,600 $10,000 $8,520 Fathoms O’Fun Festival- Marketing $9,000 $6,500 Fathoms O’Fun Festival-Hydro Races $0.00 Withdrew $0 Explore Port Orchard $0.00 $21,550 $16,809 City-Media Kit N/A $5,000 $3,714 City- 125th Anniversary N/A $3,000 $2,571 City-Foot Ferry Kiosk Sign N/A $5,000 $0 N/A N/A City-Public Event Coordinator N/A $38,440 $0 Port of Bremerton - Boater Bags $0.00 $1,500 $1,250 $1,500 $600 $1,000 $1,065 Kitsap Harbor Festival $0.00 $4,500 $2,000 $6,500 $3,080 $3,600 $1,880 $7,350 $2,840 Kitsap Mustang Club $2,500 $2,500 $1,500 $1,314 POBSA-Marketing/Events $27,013 $20,000 $24,533 $13,814 $17,100 $15,100 $19,500 $11,400 $23,200 $17,200 $20,065 $8,500 $21,300 $16,460 $14,100 $6,333 $9,100 $7,100 POBSA-Events - Tourism Marketing $10,925 $10,000 $10,533 $5,913 $0 $2,000 $5,800 $4,200 Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce - Tourism Marketing, Visitor Center Operations, Seagull Calling Festival $30,203 $28,530 Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce-Explore Port Orchard Coalition - Tourism Marketing $18,995 $13,814 $24,515 $16,000 $23,925 $14,000 $10,350 $9,834 $15,640 $9,000 $17,216 $9,500 $18,956 $5,025 $23,976 $15,620 Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce-Seagull Calling Festival $3,200 $3,014 $2,000 $1,620 $2,000 $2,000 Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce-Visitor Center $8,463 $8,277 $11,432.61 $6,250 $7,810 $6,200 Saints Car Club ( The Cruz)$2,400 $2,400 $2,300 $2,113 $1,850 $1,850 $1,875 $1,875 $1,918 $1,918 $2,100 $2,100 $1,970 $1,970 $0 $2,700 $2,100 $1,775 Sidney Museum & Arts Association-Marketing $5,070 $5,070 $5,070 $2,813 $7,080 $5,080 $5,000 $4,400 $7,000 $6,714 $10,770 $6,000 $11,110 $5,720 $10,275 $1,512 $13,000 $4,970 Sidney Museum & Arts Association-Hwy Sign $700 $700 Visit Kitsap $24,000 $22,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $15,000 $6,225 $12,000 $5,685 $12,000 $12,000 $21,500 $6,600 $18,000 $16,500 $20,000 $7,100 Reserve $8,400 $0 $0 $12,000 $0 $4,400 Grand Total of Requests $143,111 $125,000 $124,594 $90,186 $156,409 $99,000 $195,000 $83,000 $137,268 $120,000 $125,075 $64,000 $151,796 $81,000 $132,431 $73,700 $132,983 $70,290 FY' 2019 Projected Revenues: $100,000 FY's 2018 Remaining Revenues: $91,000 Page 153 of 154 Hotel/Motel Funding Requests & Allocations Organization/Event FY' 2019 Funds Requested Committee Recommendation FY' 2018 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY' 2017 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY' 2016 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY' 2015 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2014 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2013 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2012 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY’2011 Funds Requested Funds Allocated FY'2017/2018 Projected Revenues: $190,000 (2017 Allocations- $101,000) FY'2016 Projected Revenues: $84,000 FY'2015 Projected Revenues: $76,000 FY'2014 Projected Revenues: $64,000 FY'2013 Projected Revenues: $87,000 FY’2012 Projected Revenues: $71,000 FY’2011 Projected Revenues: $71,000 FY’2010 Projected Revenues: $59,785 Page 154 of 154