Bremerton planning commission hears public critique of draft active transportation plan, votes to separate its adoption from comp plan timeline

At a Planning Commission workshop in Bremerton, the commission received a presentation on simultaneous updates to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan and a new active transportation plan and then heard more than a dozen public comments before voting to recommend the active transportation plan be adopted separately from the comprehensive plan timeline.

The presentation was given by Vicki Grover, engineering project manager with the City of Bremerton, who said the city updated two plans together because of overlapping content and new Growth Management Act requirements, and summarized public outreach and technical appendices supporting the transportation element. Grover said the initial public survey (Jan. 19–Feb. 15, 2024) drew 605 responses, a mailed postcard to 5,000 addresses produced the largest share of respondents, and a GIS-based interactive map (Aug. 19–Sept. 8, 2024) yielded 225 comments and eight emails. She said 36% of map comments requested new facilities or raised concerns about existing corridor conditions and 68% of feedback focused on bike priority networks. Grover told the commission the draft documents were on Bremerton2044.com and that the formal comment period closed at midnight that night. She also described the required concurrency analysis and a project list with planning-level cost estimates and said PSRC had provided initial comments and would take about six months to certify the plan after adoption by council.

Why it matters: the transportation element is a required part of the Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act and must be consistent with Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) procedures for multimodal planning; certification affects grant eligibility and the city’s ability to pursue funding for projects in the near term. The active transportation plan defines the city’s prioritized bikeway and pedestrian networks and informs future project and development requirements.

Public commenters and advisory members raised recurring concerns about definitions, process, safety, and engagement. John Larson, who identified himself as a Bremerton resident and member of the Complete Streets Advisory Committee, said the active transportation plan “does not utilize the Complete Streets program or its principles” and recommended the Complete Streets approach and committee be integrated into the drafting process. Diane Iverson, a Complete Streets committee member, said, “The process for defining this active transportation plan is flawed,” and urged adoption of standard technical definitions (including level-of-traffic-stress metrics aligned with WSDOT and FHWA guidance), clear project-selection criteria, and prioritization steps before finalizing networks.

Other public remarks included safety objections to three conceptual roundabouts in the plan. Paul Ducky, a Bremerton resident, said he opposed the three proposed roundabouts near Kitsap Way because the designs “only meet the needs of motorists” and would be hazardous to vulnerable users. Several residents asked for more time to review recently posted appendices, particularly the concurrency fee material; Ian Harkins, representing the Kitsap Building Association, requested an extension so members could analyze the concurrency appendix.

Commissioner discussion reflected those concerns. Commissioner Eric Peterson urged the commission to consider a network of protected bike lanes and neighborhood greenways and noted that other regional cities explicitly prioritize physically protected routes and use bicycle level-of-traffic-stress (BLTS) ratings. Commissioner Tift questioned the representativeness of survey responses and urged attention to the city’s major employment center and Navy shipyard corridors; Tift said he would support delaying the active transportation portion for further outreach. Several commissioners and staff said the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan itself (the GMA-required element) had not generated similar controversy and that a split approach could preserve the city’s June certification timeline while allowing more time for the active transportation plan.

Action: Commissioner Peterson moved “to recommend that Public Works separate the work of the active transportation plan from the comprehensive plan update timeline and adopt it after the adoption of the comprehensive plan update.” Commissioner Tift seconded. A roll call recorded votes in favor by Commissioners Powell, Peterson, Tift and Chair Wofford and Commissioner Browning (recorded on the motion), and the motion passed unanimously. The commission’s recording shows the motion carried and staff said they would pass the recommendation to Public Works leadership.

Staff response and next steps: Grover said staff will review public comments, respond to PSRC comments, make revisions, bring the transportation element to Council study sessions (dates presented in the workshop materials) and return to Planning Commission for a public hearing in April; if the commission’s recommendation to separate the active transportation plan is accepted by Public Works, staff said they would continue outreach and technical revisions before returning the active transportation plan for a later adoption process. Grover also noted planning-level cost estimates are included in the project list but that prioritization based on cost is not currently an element of the draft prioritization methodology.

The workshop included numerous specific suggestions for edits and clarifications (definitions for bike facility types; adopting BLTS-based criteria; clearer labeling of priority networks on the interactive map; and additional outreach to Complete Streets and community stakeholders). PSRC initial comments were noted; staff said certification and grant eligibility depend on timely Council adoption and PSRC review.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to recommend Public Works separate the active transportation plan from the Comprehensive Plan update timeline. Mover: Commissioner Eric Peterson. Seconder: Commissioner Tift. Outcome: approved (unanimous roll call recorded in the meeting).

The Planning Commission closed the workshop portion after additional public testimony and proceeded to the zoning code workshop later in the same meeting.