HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda 03-16-2016Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA
Tri-Area Community Center
March 16, 2016
P: 360-379-4450
621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451
Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us
6:30 pm
OPENING BUSINESS
• Call to Order/Roll Call
• Approval of Agenda
• Staff Updates
• Commissioner Announcements
6:45 pm
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan Update
Topic Speakers
• City of Port Townsend-
Comp Plan Update
Monica MickHager & Nan Evans –
Port Townsend Planning Commission
• Updated Comp Plan Timeline Joel Peterson- Associate Planner
• Public Participation David W. Johnson- Associate Planner
8:00 pm
OBSERVER COMMENT
When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address.
Please be aware that the observer comment period is …
i An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer
session. The Planning Commission is not required to provide response;
ii Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time;
iii Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record;
iv May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit.
8:15 pm
CLOSING BUSINESS
• Summary of today’s meeting
• Follow-up action items
• Agenda Items for April 6th meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
8:30 pm ADJOURNMENT
• Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Port Townsend City Council From: Monica MickHager, Planning Commission Chair
Date: September 24, 2015
Re: 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update – Planning Commission Assessment
INTRODUCTION The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan is the community’s official statement
concerning its vision for the future. The Comprehensive Plan is an essential tool for managing our community’s response to important current issues, to changing
circumstances, and to the uncertainties that accompany these issues.
The Comprehensive Plan is statutorily mandated by the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW. The original 1996 Plan and subsequent
updates have guided City decisions for the past twenty years. State law now requires that the City conduct a thorough review of plan policies and their implementing
regulations as we look forward to the next twenty years (2016 – 2036).
The mandated update is to determine whether the city’s comprehensive plan and
development regulations are in compliance with the GMA. The process also presents an
opportunity to review what has worked, to examine whether changes need to be made to address those situations that have not worked as well, to address any new or changed
circumstances that have developed since the last update, and to explore areas for change that will prepare the City for the next twenty years.
The City of Port Townsend Planning Commission is the steward of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission is tasked with preparing a periodic assessment of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the schedule for GMA periodic updates provided in
RCW 36.70A.130. Section 20.04.050(A)(1) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) sets forth the process for the Planning Commission’s assessment including
seven review criteria to guide the inquiry. Assessment of these indicators provides an
opportunity to “adjust course” in order to adapt to changing circumstances, emerging issues, or changes in community values.
Community input is key to this effort. Through an extensive public participation process throughout the spring, summer and fall of 2015, the Commission listened to the
concerns of our citizens and solicited input in evaluating alternative approaches to
priority concerns.
This assessment summarizes the Commission’s findings and preliminary
recommendations for changes and amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. After the public hearing currently scheduled for the fall of 2015,
the Planning Commission will develop a list of prioritized, suggested amendments for
consideration and action by the City Council.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 1 of 73
2
The City Council must review and update, as needed, the Comprehensive Plan and associated regulations no later than June 2016.
In general, there are two types of amendments to address:
State Mandated – These amendments are required by state law and are necessary to maintain the City’s eligibility for certain types of state funding. The
Commission is relying on the City staff and their consultants to identify the
required changes and to propose needed amendments.
Community Priorities – These are changes that, although not required by state law, our community considers necessary to truly reflect the values of our City, the
needs of our citizens and our ability to adapt to and meet the challenges of the
future.
Additionally, there may be minor housekeeping changes to clarify and clean-up sections
of the existing plan and to remove references to action items that have been completed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum fulfills the Planning Commission’s responsibility to conduct an
evaluation and assessment of the current Comprehensive Plan, as required by City
regulations. And, it provides a set of preliminary recommendations for needed amendments, both “state mandated” and “community priorities”.
The Commission held work group meetings during the spring of 2015 on the five elements within the current Comprehensive Plan (land use, housing, transportation,
capital facilities and utilities, and economic development). As a result of the efforts of these work groups, the Planning Commission identified five basic key issues:
1. Community resiliency in a changing world, including adaptation to climate change, the need to transition from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy
sources, shifts towards more local support systems, changing economies and the
nature of work, changes in the demography of our community towards older residents, and changes in housing patterns.
2. The lack of available and affordable housing in our community that is making it difficult for young families, working people and people of limited means to find
acceptable housing in our community as prices of homes and rentals escalate.
3. Economic vitality for our community that will provide a diversity of jobs, a healthy
environment for small businesses, and educational opportunities, within a small
town, historic, and maritime industry-based community.
4. Transportation options that are multi-modal, safe, and interconnected, and the need to prepare for shifts away from an automobile-based transportation system.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 2 of 73
3
5. Components of community living that enhance our quality of life – parks and recreation, community diversity and environmental quality.
Although the Commission used these key issue areas to organize our thoughts, multiple issues and concerns cross boundaries and impact each other in predictable and
unpredictable ways. The Commission has not prioritized one issue area over another
because of this interconnectedness and the significance of each issue.
A key memorandum that provides significant background data that informed this assessment is attached as an appendix to this document.
2016 Comprehensive Plan Update – changing Circumstances and Emerging
Trends: A Review of Key Data to Inform Policy Choices. From: Lance Bailey, DSD Director; Judy Surber, Planning Manager; and
Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services To: Port Townsend Planning Commission
Date: June 24, 2015
Balancing Concerns The Commission’s goal is that the updated Comprehensive Plan supports a sustainable, balanced and resilient community. The Comprehensive Plan must be balanced to
achieve this goal. Balance can be approached in many different ways. A recent newsletter (https://weblink.cityofpt.us/weblink/0/edoc/118828/08-
August%202015.pdf) from Mayor David King laid out a framework for community adaptability and sustainability – a triple bottom line for community resilience:
1. Economic resilience - the financial strength and stability of the community,
including our economic vitality and diversity, our internal economic performance,
and our connections to the greater community that surrounds us locally,
regionally and nationally.
2. Social resilience – the “human capital” of the community, our personal and social
relationships, institutions and alliances, and the political and cultural cohesion of
our society.
3. Environmental resilience – the operation of the community in terms of resource
utilization and waste minimization, as well as its ability to protect and nurture the
natural ecosystems in which it operates.
In the attempt to balance issues and address concerns, the Commission also had to
realize the limits of what a comprehensive plan and our land use planning systems can actually accomplish and the real constraints of limited budgets and staff resources.
The Commission is also weighing the balance between the desires for aspirational
statements as a foundation for the Comprehensive Plan and the need for specific
actionable items that, if implemented, would make real, tangible differences to the lives of people in our community. Another area where balance is critical, is the need to weigh
the investment of time and effort that would be necessary to update plan elements that
may “be good enough” against decisions to investing these same, limited resources in
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 3 of 73
4
identifying new and emerging issues that were not envisioned or addressed adequately by current plan language, for example, climate change mitigation and adaptation or
community sustainability and resiliency.
Moving Forward Toward the Update
Following a noticed public hearing tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2015, the Planning Commission intends to make specific recommendations for the work program for the
2016 Comprehensive Plan update and a number of specific recommendations for commitments for future year work plans.
Based on the assessment in this memorandum, the Planning Commission makes the following preliminary recommendations regarding the work plan for the 2106 update:
1. Address all of the changes required to comply with state mandates, as well as any simple housekeeping changes.
2. Add general policy language to each of the existing plan elements that are needed to position the City as we endeavor to advance the goals of resiliency
and adaptability in the face of changing conditions, especially climate change,
and significant uncertainties.
3. Add general policy language to help make the City more sustainable
economically, socially, and environmentally. This new material will assuredly cross many plan elements as “everything is connected to everything else”.
The assessment provided later in this memorandum identifies a number of specific findings and preliminary recommendations for changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
This assessment does not provide specific line-by-line or wording changes. These
changes will be addressed later in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission’s final recommendations for areas to update in the Comprehensive
Plan will be developed after the public hearing in the fall of 2015.
In addition, the Commission recommends language in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
Update that commits the City to work on specific policies and ordinances addressing the
following issues for the fall of 2016 through 2020:
1. Housing Affordability and Availability – including a comprehensive gap analysis
of the existing policies and ordinances to identify road blocks and barriers, a review of creative approaches being used by other municipalities, and an
expansion of allowable housing types, such as tiny homes, zero lot lines, etc.
2. Transportation – including updating existing plan language to begin to change
the focus from automobile based transportation toward a mixed system of safe walking and bicycling routes, an effective and flexible public transportation
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 4 of 73
5
system, connections between transportation modes, and a wider choice of transportation options for members of our community.
3. Jobs - including a review of existing zoning language that may negatively impact creative entrepreneurship, small scale business development and alternative
work styles and modes.
4. Resiliency – including approaches to adapting to and managing for the impacts
of climate change, increasing local sustainability, and community vitality in all areas.
BACKGROUND
The City of Port Townsend’s 1996 Comprehensive Plan
The City’s 1996 Comprehensive Plan was adopted during a time of rapid growth,
development and economic expansion in Washington State.
Public participation was a vital element in the development of Port Townsend's 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Citizen input was summarized in a report entitled, PT
2020: Getting Together - Final Report. This report describes the process and
results of over 1,400 hours of "coffee hour" discussions, approximately 600 questionnaire responses and input from Port Townsend School District students.
Five Comprehensive Plan Development Committees, one for each of the
elements of the plan, then held over 50 meetings to integrate the individual citizen ideas into draft goals, policies, and implementation strategies. A series of
televised workshops and public hearings were held that polished the draft plan to
the form that was formally adopted in July 1996. The public participation process used to develop the 1996 Comprehensive Plan prevailed in a lawsuit challenging
the adequacy of public participation.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the current Plan was prepared in
1996. Both the Draft and Final EIS provided extensive analysis of the environmental impacts anticipated as a result of Plan adoption and
implementation.
Periodic Updates to the 1996 Plan The original Plan contained very explicit direction regarding its implementation through development regulations. During the past 20 years, the City has adopted numerous
ordinances implementing the goals and policies in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s Plan has been periodically amended over the past 18 years. In addition to
regular discretionary amendments, the City has also conducted a statutorily mandated review and update to its Plan and implementing regulations between 2004 and 2005 to
ensure ongoing compliance with the GMA. Accordingly, much of the foundation of the
existing Plan remains generally relevant and appropriate.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 5 of 73
6
The City was due for a mid-cycle assessment in 2007. This process was delayed due to the unexpected loss of the Port Townsend-Keystone ferry. Council agreed to delay the
assessment and divert staff time to negotiate with Washington State Ferries on a ferry
replacement and mitigation plan. The Planning Commission sent its mid-cycle assessment to the City Council by a memorandum dated November 13, 2008. The
Commission specifically noted that at that time the effects of the 2008 recession had not
been fully determined.
In general, in evaluating each of the required assessment criteria, the Planning Commission found:
1. Population growth within the City has been slower than anticipated by the adopted population projections.
2. The City’s capacity to provide adequate services has generally increased with respect to most elements of critical infrastructure.
3. Zoning additional land for light-manufacturing and multi-family development was
warranted, but that rezoning itself would not create the desired outcomes of
additional affordable housing and mixed use development. The Commission suggested that the city would need to be a more active participant in providing
housing to address target populations. In addition, active city involvement would be essential if mixed-use development is to occur as anticipated by the
Comprehensive Plan. This involvement will likely include providing incentives
(increased density, tax and/or fee reductions) and financial participation in the development of model mixed-use projects that “break the ice.”
4. Many of the assumptions made as part of the Plan continue to be valid.
5. The Town meetings validated that the goals and purposes of the comprehensive
plan are still applicable.
6. Climate change has emerged as a new issue. In the early summer of 2007, the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) and the Port Townsend City
Council adopted a resolution entitled "Joint Resolution to Commit to Addressing Energy Use/Global Warming” and created the Climate Action Committee (CAC). The CAC is tasked with developing a Local Climate Action Plan. Specifically, the
committee is to provide recommendations for achieving a community-wide standard of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to levels 80 percent lower than
1990 levels by 2050, with preliminary reduction targets to be set for earlier years.
Further, the CAC shall recommend implementing policies and measures to meet the emission reduction targets, and monitoring and verifying results. (Reso 44-
07, 07-022). Amendments were incorporated during the 2011 update process -
Ord. 3075.
7. The Comprehensive Plan is consistent with both the GMA and the Countywide Planning Policy.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 6 of 73
7
The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, can be found on the City’s web site. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/porttownsendplans.html
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Process The planning process is detailed in PTMC 20.04.050-.060. In general, the steps that will
lead to formation of the work program and final docket for the 2016 GMA Periodic Update are:
1. Planning Commission completes an assessment of the Comprehensive Plan using the seven criteria contained in PTMC 20.04.050
2. The Director of Development Services compiles the suggested amendments into a preliminary docket and forwards it to the Planning Commission together
with his/her recommendation on scope and schedule for the update.
3. Optional Joint Workshop - the City Council and Planning Commission may,
but are not required to, hold a noticed joint workshop to serve as an
informational meeting between the two governmental bodies.
4. Planning Commission Hearing on preliminary docket - Following the hearing,
the Planning Commission shall adopt a recommendation, identifying those amendments which it is recommending for City council consideration.
5. City Council holds a public hearing in which the City Council will consider the Planning Commission Assessment and supporting material, an assessment
and proposed work plan from the Director of Development Services, and information from citizens and will adopt a work plan directing the tasks to be completed to meet state deadlines for updating the Comprehensive Plan.
To aid in the preparation of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, in 2015 the City
Council dedicated additional resources totaling $60,000 from its discretionary fund to
assist the completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. That funding has allowed for a consultant to help provide information to update the Critical Areas Ordinance as required
by state law (Chapter 19.05 PTMC). Continued funding will be required to develop and
implement the Updated Comprehensive Plan
Substantive work effort will largely be undertaken and completed by Development
Services Department and Public Works Department staffs and a project team including representatives from other City departments, the Planning Commission, and key
committees (e.g., Climate Action Committee). It is anticipated that Public Works
Department staff will complete required updates to the Transportation and Capital Facilities & Utilities Elements of the Plan. Additional budget allocations are likely to be
needed to complete the job of updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 7 of 73
8
Public Participation In accordance with the Public Participation Program adopted by Council (Resolution 14-
020) and the process set forth in PTMC 20.04, the public has been provided early and
continuous opportunities to participate in the development of the recommended work program for the 2016 GMA Periodic update. The overarching goals of the Public
Participation Program are to inform the public, establish clear communications with the
public, and encourage broad participation in the Update process.
In addition to Planning Commission regularly scheduled meetings, community input was solicited through the following:
1. Public workshops with the Port Townsend Planning Commission and the Jefferson County Planning Commission featuring a series of guest speakers on
the following comprehensive plan topics: health, education, local food
sustainability, climate change, transportation and economic development. (Winter and Spring 2014)
2. Technical working groups involving local and state organizations, government entities, and local experts and advocates to discuss information needs, data
availability, and other technical issues. Organizations represented included
Washington Department of Transportation, Jefferson Transit, Jefferson PUD, Habitat for Humanity, Economic Development Council Team Jefferson, Main
Street, Port of Port Townsend, Port Townsend School District, Local 2020,
Climate Action committee, Jefferson Land Trust, Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee, and the Jefferson County Department of Environmental
Health and Water Quality. (February 2015) 3. Stakeholder Workgroups – Five workgroups were formed to assist the
Commission in identifying key issues and potential amendments. The workgroups were based on the five elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Capital Facilities & Utilities, and Economic Development). Each
workgroup was comprised of key stakeholders, past and current Planning Commission members, past and present Council members. All meetings were open
to the public and included opportunity for public comment. (April 2015)
4. On-line SpeakUp Survey with over 500 participants (June, 2015).
5. June 24, 2015 Town Meeting – approximately 100 guests participated in a town meeting featuring presentations by the Mayor and the DSD Director followed by
breakout tables in an open house format to solicit input on five key issues
identified through the stakeholder workgroups – (Jobs/Economic Development, Improve Transportation Options, Planning for Transition and Community
Resilience, Quality of Life for All Ages (featuring parks and recreation), and Housing).
6. SpeakUp Port Townsend Discussion Forum – in an effort to encourage broader participation and feedback on the five key issues presented at the town meeting, the City launched an online discussion forum featuring the five key topics and an
open ended “other” (June 24 - July 24, 2015).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 8 of 73
9
7. Series of public forums focused on community resilience and well-being were
held in Port Townsend from June 16-June 20, 2015. The events were co-hosted
by Local 20/20 and Collective Impact, with co-sponsors including the City of Port Townsend, Firefly Academy Preschool, and Thunderbull Productions. Per the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City and Local 20/20, Local
20/20 incorporated the City’s five key issues into the presentation and provided a written report summarizing community feedback to the five key issues.
8. Written comments – As of the date of this memorandum, the Planning
Commission has received twenty-one (21) public comment letters on the Comprehensive Plan update. All comment letters have been distributed to the
Planning Commissioners and City Council and are compiled in a comment log.
The Commission appreciates the level of detail provided in the comments. The basic attitudes and values have informed this assessment and, once Council has
adopted the docket for the 2016 Update, many of the detailed letters will prove a
valuable resource to the Commission as amendments are drafted.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 9 of 73
10
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ASSESSMENT
Introduction Section 20.04.050(A)(1) of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) sets forth the
process for the Planning Commission’s assessment of the Comprehensive Plan,
including the seven review criteria to guide the inquiry. The evaluation criteria address the following concerns:
1. Population growth and development trends;
2. City’s ability to provide necessary infrastructure;
3. Sufficiency of land use designations and zones;
4. Validity of assumptions underpinning the Plan;
5. Changes in community values and attitudes;
6. Changes in circumstances that may suggest the need for amendments; and
7. Consistency with the GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies, and Jefferson
County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Application of this review framework to the Comprehensive Plan helps the City to identify
policy and regulatory changes that may be necessary to better align the Plan with
changing circumstances, emerging issues, and changes in community attitudes.
The Commission’s review of the evaluation criteria has been informed by discussions
with staff and consultants, reviews of many background documents and, very importantly, by information and perspectives provided during the public participation
process. (See also the “Changing Circumstances” memorandum included as an
Appendix to this Assessment.)
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 10 of 73
11
Evaluation Criteria
1. Is the growth and development envisioned in the City’s Plan
occurring faster or slower than anticipated? Or, is it failing to
materialize? (§20.04.050(A)(1)(a) PTMC)
Discussion An important objective of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was to plan for expected
increases in the City’s population. Recent data show that Washington’s rate of
population growth is slowing, though it remains one of the fastest growing states in the nation at about 1.27% annually.
The growth rates of both Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have slowed markedly over the last decade. In fact, the City's population is expected to be less in 2036 under the County’s population projection and allocation than was anticipated for
the year 2024 under the previous forecast. Table 1 compares the population planning forecasts that have shaped City and County Comprehensive Plans over the past
decades. Each of the two prior forecasts, 1996 and 2004, anticipated faster population
growth than has actually been observed.
The City and County are required to use the population growth forecasts prepared by the
Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM). While selection of a county-wide population projection falling within the OFM’s projected range is mandatory, the manner
in which this population is allocated within a county is discretionary under the GMA,
provided that all urban growth occurs within properly designated urban areas. City and County staff have jointly prepared a recommended population projection and
allocation. The projection is based on OFM's medium series projection. Adoption of this
projection would bring the county and City into GMA compliance with regard to population projections under sections 36.70A.130 and .110 RCW. Council has approved
staff’s recommendation.
Ultimately, the legislative authority and responsibility to adopt an updated population
forecast and allocation resides solely with the Board of County Commissioners, upon the recommendation of the Joint Growth Management Steering Committee (JGMSC). It is
anticipated that the JGMSC will begin its review sometime in summer of 2015.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 11 of 73
12
The information used in the tables below provides only a preliminary basis for assessment of population growth and percentage allocation between the City and the
County.
Table 1: Comparison of Population Planning Forecasts –1996 to Present
Geographic Area
1996 Projection for
2016
2004 Projection for
2024
Anticipated 2014
Projection for 2036
City of Port Townsend
8,366 (1996) + 5,510 = 13,876 (2016)
8,334 (2000) + 4,985 = 13,329 (2024) 9,113 (2010) + 3,052 = 12,165 (2036)
Jefferson County
25,756 (1996) + 13,640
= 39,396 (2016)
26,299 (2000) + 13,840
= 40,139 (2024)
29,872 (2010) + 8,477 =
38,349 (2036)
The recommended approach for the 2016 Update is consistent with the previously adopted methodology (Resolution 55-03) retaining the 70:30 urban to rural
disaggregation and allocating 36% to the Port Townsend UGA. The remaining 34% is then allocated to UGAs in the County (Tri-Area UGA, Port Ludlow MPR and proposed
Brinnon MPR).
Consistent with the GMA, the City and County have planned for the vast majority of
growth to occur within urban areas. The City has planned and provided the infrastructure
necessary to accommodate 36% of the anticipated countywide population growth. However, Port Townsend’s population as a percentage of the County has fallen over the
last two decades (34.6% in 1992; 30.5% today) as more people have chosen to live in
the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. Table 2, below, shows the anticipated population growth for both the City and County for the planning period ending in 2036.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 12 of 73
13
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
o
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
2
0
-
Y
ea
r
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
2
0
1
6
-
2
0
3
6
)
1 A
B
C
D
E
F
G
1
20
1
0
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
Al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
To
t
a
l
C
o
u
n
t
y
-
wi
d
e
G
r
o
w
t
h
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Gr
o
w
t
h
(2
0
1
0
-
2
0
3
6
)
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Gr
o
w
t
h
(
2
0
1
6
-
20
3
6
)
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
20
3
6
4 (2010) 2036 Projected Compound Annual Growth Rate 5
2
Po
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
U
G
A
(I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
)
9
,
1
1
3
3
6
%
3,
0
5
2
2,
7
1
1
12
,
1
6
5
1.12%
3
Tr
i
-
A
r
e
a
U
G
A
6
(U
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
)
3,
5
8
0
1
9
.
4
%
1
,
6
4
5
1
,
4
6
1
5
,
2
2
5
1
.
4
7
%
4
Po
r
t
L
u
d
l
o
w
M
P
R
(U
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
)
2,
6
0
3
1
0
.
1
%
8
5
6
7
6
0
3
,
4
5
9
1
.
1
1
%
5
Br
i
n
n
o
n
M
P
R
--
4
.
5
%
3
8
1
3
3
9
3
8
1
2
5
.
6
8
%
-
-
6
UG
A
/
M
P
R
T
o
t
a
l
15
,
2
9
6
70
%
5,
9
3
4
5,
2
7
1
21
,
2
3
0
1.27%
7
Un
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
R
u
r
a
l
&
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
A
r
e
a
s
1
4
,
5
7
6
3
0
%
2
,
5
4
3
2
,
2
6
0
1
7
,
1
1
9
0
.
6
2
%
8
Co
u
n
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
T
o
t
a
l
29
,
8
7
2
7
10
0
%
8,
4
7
7
7,
5
3
1
38
,
3
4
9
8 0.97%
1 S
o
u
r
c
e
:
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
r
a
c
t
a
n
d
b
l
o
c
k
d
a
t
a
,
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
2 F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
2
0
3
6
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
u
n
t
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
2
0
1
0
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
u
n
t
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
s
p
e
r
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
i
n
C
o
l
u
m
n
C
.
3 F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
2
0
3
6
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
u
n
t
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
O
F
M
’
s
2
0
1
6
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
u
n
t
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
;
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
s
p
e
r
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
i
n
Column C.
4 F
o
r
m
u
l
a
:
B
+
D
5 C
A
G
R
=
(
E
n
d
i
n
g
V
a
l
u
e
/
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
V
a
l
u
e
)
^
(
1
/
#
o
f
Y
e
a
r
s
)
-
1
6 I
n
2
0
0
4
,
t
h
e
T
r
i
-
A
r
e
a
U
G
A
b
e
c
a
m
e
k
n
o
w
n
a
s
t
h
e
P
o
r
t
H
a
d
l
o
ck
/
I
r
o
n
d
a
l
e
U
G
A
.
T
r
i
-
A
r
e
a
i
s
u
s
e
d
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
.
7 S
o
u
r
c
e
:
2
0
1
0
U
.
S
.
C
e
n
s
u
s
8 S
o
u
r
c
e
:
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
1
3
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
-
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
Commission's Assessment Page 13 of 73
14
* These preliminary projections are based upon the OFM Intermediate or “Midrange” Series. Although no
projection and allocation have yet been formalized by Jefferson County, it is expected that the updated GMA planning population projection and allocation will employ a methodology similar to that used for the last periodic plan updates. See Jefferson County Resolution No. 55-03, September 22, 2003 for further information.
Concerns: Uncertainties and Changing Times
The next twenty years are likely to be very different from the past twenty years. Over the
past twenty years, unanticipated events such as the 2008 economic recession slowed population growth in the City and the influx of more retirees shifted the demographics
toward an aging population. Economic, social and environmental uncertainties in the
future may greatly impact our City’s population in the next twenty years. For example:
Climate change-driven water shortages and rising average temperatures in other parts of the country may result in larger numbers of people relocating to
the Pacific Northwest, especially Port Townsend and Jefferson County.
Changing hydrographic regimes that reduce summertime river flows locally
may negatively impact the ability of the Port Townsend Paper Mill to continue as a production facility and an economic base of our community.
If Port Townsend continues to attract retirees and other older individuals, the
demographics of our community will create additional factors that City officials
and planners will need to consider in efforts to meet the needs for services (e.g., access to health care) and economic opportunities (e.g., family wage
jobs) in our community.
If there are changes in transportation systems, such as a direct ferry between
Port Townsend and Seattle, our community could experience increased population growth from urban commuters and increased economic
opportunities.
How people work is changing as more people work from home using technologies such as the Internet and new businesses that come to Port
Townsend are likely to employ fewer than a dozen or so workers.
Some planners at the national level predict extensive economic disruptions resulting from limits to the availability of energy supplies and constraints of a
global economy. Others predict that our society will rise to the challenges of
the future and employ technological advances, socio-economic adjustments and other innovations. Whatever proves to be the case, the only certainty is
that things in Port Townsend will be different from the past twenty years and
probably from the projections made today.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 14 of 73
15
Planning Commission Findings
1. Population growth during the past 20 years, within both the City and County, has
been slower than anticipated under past population forecasts and allocations. Therefore, the demands placed upon the City’s infrastructure, natural resources
and land supply have been somewhat less, or occurred somewhat later, than
predicted at the time of the last periodic update in 2005.
2. Given that the actual and projected population growth in the City is substantially less than was expected in the 1996 Plan, substantial changes to the land use plan that would require preparation of an entirely new EIS are not anticipated.
Hence, SEPA compliance will likely be achieved either through an Addendum, or a narrowly scoped Supplemental EIS.
3. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated that Port Townsend would begin to capture a higher percentage (36%) of the County’s total population growth, “Past trends
in building activity and growth are not likely to continue after implementation of
the GMA, because more people are likely to live in UGAs (including Port Townsend), and fewer in rural areas” (Page IV-6). The data shows that for Port
Townsend, this has not been the case. In fact, the city’s population as a
percentage of Jefferson County’s total population has declined (34.6% in 1992; 30.5% today).
Preliminary Recommendations 1. Given the uncertainties around population projections and future conditions, the
2016 Comprehensive Plan Update needs to provide flexibility, to the maximum
extent possible, to ensure that the City and our citizens can adapt and respond to these unpredictable changes while still respecting the other policies and goals of
the City. 2. Pursuant to PTMC Chapter 20.04.035, City Council may elect to open future
annual amendment processes to suggested amendments. The Comprehensive Plan should be amended to encourage regular reviews leading to timely
amendments should assumptions regarding growth projections, economic and
environmental conditions and community needs prove to be inaccurate.
3. With respect to possible changes in population growth rates and demographics,
the City staff should to be directed to conduct regular annual assessments to monitor actual population growth based on the Office of Financial Management
yearly updates. The City staff should also be directed to brief the City council, the
Planning Commission and the community annually so that, if population growth rates and trends change, the City can take the needed steps to respond with any
needed policy or regulatory changes.
4. The 2016 Update must provide the policy basis for the City’s responses to
changing circumstances.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 15 of 73
16
2. Has the City’s capacity to provide adequate services diminished, or
increased? (§20.04.050(A)(1)(b) PTMC)
Discussion Because the City’s growth is occurring more slowly than was expected in prior iterations
of the Comprehensive Plan, the anticipated demands on public services and
infrastructure have eased somewhat, or are occurring later in time. Although growth pressures have diminished, the City’s financial capacity to provide expanded services
and infrastructure has – like most jurisdictions – been negatively impacted by the 2008 “Great Recession” and its lingering effects.
Nevertheless, the City has successfully undertaken many capital projects since 1996 both to maintain existing infrastructure as well as expand capacity to meet future
demand:
Wastewater Collection and Treatment: Several projects (e.g., Gaines Street
Pump Station, Island Vista Pump Station, Tremont Street Sewer Trunk Line Rebuild, and the replacement of the on-land portion of the Treatment Plant
Outfall) have increased the capacity and the reliability of the central conveyance
system. The collection system has generally grown concurrent with development, although certain areas of town remain un-served (e.g., commercial and industrial
zoned land located near the entrance to the City). Although sized to excess
capacity, incremental population growth and development continues to slowly reduce available plant capacity. It should be noted that slower growth has thus
far allowed the City to defer the initiation of planning studies to expand treatment
plant capacity.
Water Treatment and Distribution: Water system improvements since initial Plan adoption have increased the service pressures to specific areas of town that
previously failed to meet State standards. Generally, the system has grown
concurrent with development. However, as federal and state drinking water standards continue to evolve, improvements may be necessary to maintain
statutory compliance.
Streets: Bicycle and pedestrian access has been expanded with the completion of work along Upper Sims Way/Highway 20, which also helped to calm traffic flows and aesthetically improve the entrance to the City. Additionally, some
gravel streets have been surfaced in recent years. However, street maintenance funding has not kept pace with roadway deterioration throughout significant
portions of the City. This shortfall continues to increase the City’s financial liability
to bring the streets to adopted standards. In general, new development has resulted in improvements to the street network commensurate with its impacts.
The City continues to plan for substantial improvements to the Howard Street
Corridor to address current and projected traffic levels.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 16 of 73
17
Stormwater: The City’s adoption of the 2005 DOE Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington has increased the level of stormwater
improvements required for new development. Over time, application of these standards should increase the City’s ability to manage runoff from additional
development. In 2015 the City partnered with the Jefferson County Marine
Resources Committee and WSU to install rain gardens in existing neighborhoods experiencing stormwater management issues.
Recently the City made substantial efforts toward construction of a municipal stormwater system within the Howard/Rainier Street corridor to allow for more
intensive development in the Howard Street Corridor work district. The City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan land use map, zoning and development regulations to support and implement the work district concept.
City Buildings: Significant improvements to certain City buildings (e.g., a new Fire
Station and the seismic retrofit and expansion of City Hall and the Library) have
enhanced the City’s ability to serve the existing and future population. Additionally the Police Station has been relocated from the historic downtown
area to the former Mountain View School on Blaine Street, where it is more centrally located to enhance response times and to situate this essential
emergency service outside a tsunami and seismically-vulnerable zone.
Parks: The City has acquired a number of properties in recent years for park
purposes. Some of these properties (e.g., Baker View Park on 22nd Street) have been opened to the public, while others remain only modestly developed with non-motorized trails (e.g., 35th Street Park). Park development has not always
kept up with residential development, in particular in the western and northwestern quadrants of the City.
The City acquired title to the southern uplands of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park
from the Port of Port Townsend in 2013, while at the same time deeding both its City Dock and Union Wharf facilities to the Port. While this reciprocal transaction
did not expand park and recreational offerings to City residents, transfer of the
docks did marginally reduce the City’s long-term capital maintenance obligations.
The City has also entered into a long-term lease (15 years plus a 15 year
optional extension) with the Port Townsend School District for the Mountain View School campus (now Commons) to provide a central location for the police
department and other community services (swimming pool, food bank and public
radio station as examples). A voter-approved bond (February 2015), will support needed repairs, extending the useful life time of these buildings. Additionally,
approximately 0.6 acres adjacent to Bishop Park was acquired by the City and developed for children through contributions from citizens and community
groups.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 17 of 73
18
Concerns: Uncertainties and Changing Times The provision of basic infrastructure and public services is, of course, intimately
connected with the City’s ability to be a great place for a diverse population to live, work,
and play. More than probably any other of the evaluation criteria, infrastructure and public services require substantial funds to provide and maintain services and facilities
that meet the needs of the City’s citizens.
Looking to the years ahead, possible economic volatility, the lingering effects of the 2008 recession, and possible effects of reduced energy availability may impact tax revenue
growth and the City’s ability to fund and provide basic infrastructure and services.
Additionally, climate change predictions suggest such changes as increased storm surges and sea level rise over the next 100 years which then raise questions of how the
City will adjust in the long term.
Planning Commission Findings
1. Since initial Plan adoption, the services and facilities provided to City residents have generally expanded and improved to meet the needs of our community, with the
exception of street maintenance.
2. With respect to the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission
does not currently see the need for significant changes. The existing policies
adequately provide the basis for decision making.
3. Basically, funding, not the Comprehensive Plan, is the major constraint impacting
City facilities and services. Financial capacity critically impacts the City’s abilities to respond quickly to emerging issues.
4. The City’s recent infrastructure investments in the Howard Street Corridor are consistent with, and hopefully will advance, the adopted goals in the existing
Comprehensive Plan to stimulate economic development.
Preliminary Recommendations 1. The Commission suggests budgetary and financing policy modifications to increase
the City’s ability to respond to uncertainties and changing times.
For example, the City is permitted to accumulate debt up to 2.5% of its assessed
value (AV) for general purposes, utility costs and acquisition of parks and open
spaces, for a total debt limit of 7.5% of total AV. General purpose debt is further divided into councilmanic debt not requiring voter approval (1.5% AV) and voter-
approved debt (1% AV). Currently the City does not carry any debt related to utilities
or parks and open space. As of the beginning of 2015 the City has a non-voted debt of $15,850,000 (81% of limit) and a voted debt of $3,600,000 (28% of limit). Thus
City debt is far below its total statutory limit. Nevertheless, the extent to which the
City can respond quickly to unanticipated needs through direct Council action is limited by current debt. Additionally, because debt-service payments on non-voted,
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 18 of 73
19
councilmanic debt must come from existing revenues, such debt reduces the City services that can be provided at current levels of taxation.
2. Specific policy language in the Capital Facilities and Utilities Element should be revised to accommodate advances in technology, such as adding references to
include broadband internet, sea wall infrastructure, and the tsunami warning system;
to encourage development of private and public distributed solar and wind power generation; and to generalize language to provide greater flexibility to accommodate
future, currently unanticipated advances in technology. 3. Specific policy language should be added in the Comprehensive Plan to provide,
expand and maintain a wide range of recreational facilities, including trails and nature parks. Trail system development should actively avoid degradation of
functioning urban wildlife corridors.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 19 of 73
20
3. Has the City designated and zoned sufficient land to meet projected
demand and needs? (§20.04.050(A)(1)(c) PTMC)
Discussion
During the last “Mid-Cycle Assessment” in 2008, City staff conducted an analysis to determine vacant lands within the City. This analysis found that no category of land use
designation had seen more than 15% of its area developed since 1996. Further, the study concluded that sufficient land was designated in appropriate use categories to meet projected demand and needs.
The 2008 Mid-Cycle Assessment concluded:
Given that the city is in the twelfth year of a 20 year planning horizon and the
percent of land developed since 1996 is no greater than 15% in any land use
category, it appears that the city has adequate capacity to meet projected needs. In regards to residential land, the city has a theoretical carrying capacity of over
30,000 people and thus, is adequately sized to accommodate anticipated future
urban growth (13,329 by 2024).
The following table is from the “2008 Mid-Cycle Assessment”.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 20 of 73
21
2008 Mid-Cycle Assessment
Table 3: Available Lands by Zoning District
Land Use Designation Total Land Area
(in acres less
platted rights of
way and
marinas)
Vacant Land
Area (in Acres
Less Platted
Rights of Way,
Marinas, and
Government
Owned land)
Land Area in
Acres
Developed
Since 1996
Percent of
Total Land
Developed
Since 1996
R-I, Single-family low
density
566.1 277.9 60.3 10.7%
R-II, Single-family
medium density
1517.3 490.6 131.8 8.7%
R-III, Medium Density
Multi-family
165.4 82 15.4` 9.3%
R-IV, High Density Muti-
family
22.3 12.8 3.0 13.5%
C-I/MU, Neighborhood
Serving Mixed Use
Center
15.4 5.4 0 0
C-II/MU, Community
Serving Mixed Use
Center
14.6 8.0 0 0
C-I, Neighborhood
Commercial
1.1 0 0 0
C-II, General
Commercial
104.2 36.0 2.9 2.8%
C-II(H), Hospital
Commercial
11.0 3.5 .9 8.2%
C-III, Historic
Commercial
26.0 1.2 1.1 (3) 4.2%
M/C, Mixed
Commercial/Light
Manufacturing
61.8 45.6 2.1 3.3%
M-II(A) Marine Related
Boat Haven
67.5 0 3.3
M-II(B) Marine Related _
Point Hudson
21.7 0 0
P/;OS, Existing Park and
Open Space
609.5 1.4 0 0
P/OS(B) Public/Mixed
Use
86.0 0 0
P-I, Public/Infrastructure 152.3 0 0
Total:
2,443.2
Since 2008, growth and development have slowed notably as a result of the economic downturn. Thus, it would be expected that an updated vacant lands analysis would reach
the same conclusion. Moreover, the 1996 Plan designated sufficient vacant residential
lands to accommodate a theoretical population in excess of 30,000. Because the anticipated population at the end of the planning period in 2036 (12,165) is less than that
expected under the prior forecast and allocation for 2024 (13,329), it can be safely
concluded that the City’s UGA remains adequately sized to accommodate anticipated urban population growth.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 21 of 73
22
However, the “gap” between housing prices and wages and incomes appears to have grown wider, not narrower, over the past two decades.
The trend towards a retirement residential community with limited family-wage job opportunities has not changed, despite the City’s efforts to permit a wider variety of more
affordable housing types (e.g., ADUs, increased area of multi-family zoning, allowing duplex/triplex/fourplex in single-family zones) and to expand areas zoned for commercial
and manufacturing use. (Changing Circumstances & Emerging Trends: 2015)
The Howard Street corridor contains the last significant contiguous area of undeveloped commercial land within the City. The Comprehensive Plan calls for Howard Street (and
the Discovery Road corridor) to be transformed into a “…vital, attractive local shopping
and commercial services district.” The Plan directs the preparation of a “…corridor
master plan for intensive commercial development of the area.” E.D. Hovee & Company,
LLC and Spinnaker Strategies recently (January 2015) prepared an Economic Feasibility
Study (the “Feasibility Study”) for development of the Howard Street Corridor. Their report contains a more detailed look at the current employment and wage profile by
industry sector that further illustrates the challenge of generating additional and better
quality jobs in Port Townsend and Jefferson County. The Hovee study recommends amendments targeting a mix of job sectors which together will pay above the current
median.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 22 of 73
23
One of the concepts promoted by the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was to create a number of mixed use zones within the City. These mixed use zones were intended to provide
flexibility in development patterns and to promote the development of neighborhood
centers. The City has not seen the mixed use zones develop as initially expected, probably as a result of economic conditions during the past twenty years as well as the
lack of infrastructure in certain areas. The recent discussions by the Workgroups formed
to initiate the process for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update resulted in a number of options regarding the mixed use zones, from eliminating them to providing even more
flexibility in the requirements that have been developed for mixed use zones.
The 1996 Comprehensive Plan also included designations for Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial/Manufacturing zones.
However, the zoning codes were never changed to allow PUD’s in Commercial and Manufacturing zones. The expected development of the Howard Street corridor focused
attention on the lack of regulations for the use of the PUD process in Commercial and
Manufacturing zones. In 2015, on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, City Council adopted Ord. 3129 with specific code language allowing for the expansion of
PUD provisions in the C-II and M/C zoning districts. The intent of such designation is to
promote innovative and well-designed commercial and light manufacturing developments which are supportive of the City's economic development strategy.
Planning Commission Findings
1. Since initial Plan adoption, the amount of vacant land available in the City’s land use designations has not substantially declined. Because the City’s anticipated
population at the end of the 20-year planning period (12,165) is now significantly less
than was previously forecast under either the 1996 Plan (13,876 for 2016) or the last major Plan Update in 2004 (13,329 for 2024), it can reasonably be concluded that
more than sufficient land – in all land use categories – has been designated to meet
projected demand and needs.
2. Recent zoning code changes allowing PUDs in C-II and M/C districts addressed the immediate needs to allow for greater flexibility in development patterns in the City.
3. The current Comprehensive Plan calls for a variety of housing choices and the provision of affordable housing throughout all geographic and economic segments of
the community. Yet, from the perspective of young families, low income adults,
elderly on fixed incomes, and individuals with special needs, housing affordability and availability has drastically declined over the last 20 years. This is one
comprehensive plan element that has developed into a crisis despite efforts to the
contrary.
4. As documented in the Hovee Study, Port Townsend needs added employment and
improved wage opportunity. Accommodating the job needs of Port Townsend and Jefferson County requires general (non-marine) industrial land with municipal
infrastructure services not currently available elsewhere in the city or county. As the
only major source of vacant and underutilized industrial land within the city limits of Port Townsend, the Howard Street work district can meet this need for shovel-ready
sites when street and utility improvements are completed.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 23 of 73
24
Preliminary Recommendations Although several suggestions have been made to review and possibly amend the Mixed
Use zoning regulations, the Planning Commission recommends that such an evaluation is premature and that the City should defer a review of Mixed Use zones until recovery
from the economic recession of 2008 is demonstrably sustained. The Planning
Commission recommends that there is little harm for such a deferment and that the City’s limited resources are better spent on more pressing matters.
1. The 2016 Update needs to address zoning mechanisms that can increase the diversity of housing types (e.g., changing minimum lot sizes to allow more flexibility).
2. To support anticipated/desired job growth, the City should continue to explore the
options and recommendations contained in the Hovee Study.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 24 of 73
25
4. Do the assumptions upon which the Plan is based remain valid?
(§20.04.050(A)(1)(d) PTMC)
Discussion The assumptions upon which the Plan is based are set forth on pages II-9 and II-10 of
the Comprehensive Plan. These hypotheses, all of which date to the original 1996 Plan,
were remarkably prescient in describing the ensuing 18 years of Port Townsend’s history. (The assumptions were specifically discussed in the September 18, 2014,
meeting of the Planning Commission as well as a number of times throughout the
assessment process.)
These assumptions are listed on the following two pages. (The original assumptions are
listed in bullet form. For ease of discussion, they are listed in number format here.)
The 1996 Comprehensive Plan recognized that any assumptions are subject to certain
uncertainty and changes beyond our control. The Plan adopted growth strategies that were based on the best understanding of likely growth trends and the consequences of
implementing a particular strategy. Planners and citizens at the time understood that unforeseen events could affect the amount, size, composition and location of future job growth, demand for housing, vehicle trip generation, and land development. (p. II-10)
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 25 of 73
26
1996 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PORT TOWNSEND’S FUTURE
With Updated Observations from 2015
Port Townsend will continue to be the retailing, service, government, medical, and transportation center
for eastern Jefferson County. Diversification of the local economy will cause the City to reevaluate its historic land use patterns, and zone more land for commercial or manufacturing uses. Shoreline areas that are necessary for the continued vitality of the marine trade industries will continue to be protected
and reserved for such uses.
2015 Assessment: In general, these assumptions remain valid today even though Port Townsend
has not experienced the level of growth anticipated in 1996. The recession of 2008 severely
impacted the local economic climate.
Port Townsend will remain the principal City of Jefferson County, and as the population of the area continues to grow and age, the City's role as the activity center for governmental, professional, and medical and social services within the County will grow.
2015 Assessment: Again, in general this remains true, except that social services have expanded
in the county and are available in several unincorporated towns such as Port Hadlock and Port
Ludlow.
Port Townsend and the surrounding portions of unincorporated Jefferson County will remain an
attractive place to live, and population growth within the City and Jefferson County will considerably exceed that of the state and nation as a whole.
2015 Assessment: While most people continue to consider Port Townsend and east Jefferson
County an attractive place to live, population growth in Port Townsend and the County has slowed
to an average of 0.5% from 2010-2013 while the state growth rate is approximately 1%. .
Port Townsend's citizens will remain active in the affairs of City government and planning, and will demand that growth and development be responsive to the desires of the community, with an emphasis
on maintaining Port Townsend's special places and high quality of life rather than encouraging growth for growth's sake.
2015 Assessment: Still valid.
As areas within Port Townsend become more densely developed, the demand for public services and
amenities will also grow, requiring local government to plan for and provide the services and facilities necessary to serve the growth.
2015 Assessment: This assumption is still valid, except that the growth anticipated between 1996
and 2016 has not been seen, primarily due to the 2008 recession and other economic factors.
Like other local governments. Port Townsend will be forced to rely even more heavily on local sources of revenue as state and federal funding of community services and capital improvements become increasingly difficult, to obtain. As a result, the City will have to reexamine traditional land use patterns
in order to make the most effective use of its capital facilities investments.
2015 Assessment: In general the assumption is still valid although the anticipated growth rates
have not occurred, so that the demand on capital facilities investment has been less than
anticipated.
The majority of Port Townsend's new residential development will occur in previously platted areas.
2015 Assessment: Still valid, except that achieving resiliency on previously platted lots may be
problematic since they were not platted with consideration of critical areas, connectivity, etc.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 26 of 73
27
There will be significant commercial redevelopment activity along the Highway 20 corridor and in Port
Townsend's Commercial Historic District.
2015 Assessment: Although growth did not occur at the expected rate, commercial development
and re-development has occurred in these areas. Commercial development, especially downtown,
has not yet recovered fully from the 2008 recession.
As vacant and developable land becomes more scarce and population continues to grow, the cost of housing will continue to rise at a faster rate than personal income. This will force the City to reexamine traditional housing and residential development patterns.
2015 Assessment: Still valid. Although the housing affordability has become a huge issue, the
causes can only partially be explained by scarcity in appropriately zoned developable land.
Although improvements will be made and greater emphasis will be placed upon public transportation and pedestrian and bicycle travel, the private automobile will continue to be a significant form of transportation for the majority of Port Townsend and Jefferson County residents. Port Townsend must consider revisions to its traditional land use patterns and development regulations to promote greater use of pedestrian and bicycle routes and its public transportation investment.
2015 Assessment: Citizens are increasingly choosing alternatives to reliance on the private
automobile as a result of many factors including the rising cost of fuel, concerns about carbon
emissions and healthier life style decisions. Although much remains to be done, the City has made
many improvements in walking/hiking trails, sidewalks and bike lanes around town. Common
citizen complaints are heard, however, about the lack of adequate street maintenance, the
inadequacies of the public transit system, and the continuing emphases on the private automobile.
Concerns about water quality and wildlife preservation, as well as other environmental issues, will continue to generate changes to state and federal laws, which will also impact local land use planning requirements and development regulations.
2015 Assessment: Still valid.
Port Townsend's economy will expand, tourism will remain important to the local economy, and the marine trades will increase in economic importance. The Port of Port Townsend will also focus more attention on promoting marine trades and providing the necessary improvements to sustain these uses.
2015 Assessment: Still valid. Lodging tax revenues have been flat or not risen much recently, but merchants say retail business is good. Growth of the health industry has become an important economic factor
Port Townsend will experience growth in citizen interest in the arts and cultural activities as the
population increases. This growth will result in increased attendance at local art, cultural, educational and recreational events, and create a demand for new and improved facilities.
2015 Assessment: Still valid.
An increasingly dense population will create greater demand for recreation facilities and open space,
and Port Townsend will need to specifically identify recreational and open space needs.
2015 Assessment: Still valid. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space plan identifies the need for a
neighborhood park in the west/ northwest portion of the City. This has become a significant need as
these areas have received significant population growth and development since 1996. Adding the
word "unmet" between identify and recreational seems appropriate based on the discussion of
where the deficiencies exist.
Port Townsend will continue to provide municipal public services (e.g., water and wastewater) to the
residents of the City and water service to certain portions of unincorporated Jefferson County, as they become designated UGAs or are included within areas to be served by the City through the City's Comprehensive Water System Plan.
2015 Assessment: Still valid. However, the city no longer provides services to the Port Hadlock
areas.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 27 of 73
28
Concerns: Uncertainties and Changing Times The 1996 Comprehensive Plan specifically recognizes the reality of changing times and
future uncertainties. On page 9 of chapter II, the Plan states:
“Unforeseen events can affect the amount, rate, composition and location of
future job growth, demand for housing, vehicle trip generation, and land
development. For example, the decision of a major employer to move into or out
of Port Townsend could significantly affect Port Townsend's Plan. Construction of
a major business park, a decision regarding the future viability of the Port
Townsend Paper Mill, changes in lifestyles, and technological advancements are
events beyond the control of the City that could alter the assumptions used in the
comprehensive planning process.”
The 1996 Plan was predicated on the unstated assumption of the continuation of past trends in growth and progress. Will all these assumptions remain relevant in the years
ahead? Multiple lines of evidence strongly hint that the answer may be “no” or at least
“probably not”.
Global economic uncertainty, possible impacts of stalled growth in energy availability,
global scale environmental degradation and climate change all point to large scale changes in the coming decades. The possibility of a significant seismic event along the
Cascade Fault Zone, sea level rise of several inches over the next 100 years, increased severity of storms with higher force winds and heavier rainfall, changes in the hydrographic regime and water availability (declining snowpack, lower summer river
flows, higher winter flows and increased river temperatures) all create uncertainties for the future. How these changes will impact us in future decades at the local level is
unclear.
Further innovations in how people work, such as internet based jobs or the growth of a
sharing economy, and how people live, such as community co-housing and “tiny”
houses, will also present challenges to past assumptions.
Since 1996, the City’s demographics have shifted: (U.S. Census Data, including the
American Families Survey 2009-2015)
Greater percentage of seniors - in 1990, 19.5% of Port Townsend’s population
was older than 65, by 2010 the percentage increased to 24.6%. (Statewide average equals 12.3%).
Increasing median age – the median age of Port Townsenders was 47 years in 2000, by 2010 the median age increased to 53 years.
Higher levels of education – in 1990 the percentage of Port Townsenders with a Bachelor’s degree or higher was 27.7%, by 2013 that percentage increased to
42.4%. The statewide average in 2013 was 31.9%.
Falling enrollment in schools – in 2000 20% of Port Townsenders over 3 years
old were enrolled in school, by 2013 that number dropped to 16%.
Increasing wealth inequalities - a significantly higher percentage of residents live in poverty and cannot afford housing: 14% of individuals in 2000 and 17.1%
2009-2013 (US Census Bureau).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 28 of 73
29
Increasing percentage of multi-family housing – in 1990, multi-family housing
accounted for 16.7% of housing units by type in the city; by 2013, 23.6% of the
units were multi-family (a 121% increase, compared to an increase of 57% in the total number of housing units. It should be noted that assisted living facilities and
age-restricted housing units are included in the category of multi-family housing.)
Increasing median home values – in inflation adjusted dollars, the median home value in Port Townsend increased 52% between 1990 and 2013.
Increasing numbers of second homes – 7.7% in 1990 to 12% in 2013.
The impacts of climate change on the economy and as an impetus for more people to retire here from dry regions, and natural disasters such as earthquakes were listed as
unforeseen events that are difficult to plan for.
From a conventional perspective that does not account for national and global trends,
the basic assumptions documented in the Comprehensive Plan would appear to remain largely valid. However, a review of broader trends suggests a need to revisit and update
some of the Plan’s assumptions to recognize convergent issues of economy, energy and
environment and the challenges facing all levels of government in an era of shrinking public budgets.
(See the “Changing Circumstances” memo included as an Appendix to this Assessment.)
Planning Commission Findings 1. Most of the assumptions in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan remain relevant today.
2. Population and economic growth predictions in the 1996 Plan were not realized.
3. Significant uncertainties about the future exist and are very likely to impact our City in ways we cannot predict, especially changes related to climate change and the need for local resiliency and sustainability.
4. Despite the Plan’s focus on maintaining small town character and achieving a better
balance between jobs and housing, the undeniable demographic trend has been
towards a retirement residential community.
5. While certain areas of town have experienced an influx of retirees with comparatively significant financial resources, US Census data also show that the number of citizens
living below the federal poverty line has increased - particularly young families with children and certain segments of the elderly population. Working families will continue to need jobs, affordable housing, schools and recreational space within
their community.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 29 of 73
30
Preliminary Recommendations
1. Even though many of the assumptions underlying the 1996 Comprehensive Plan
remain valid today, the Commission recommends that the 2016 Update specifically include a discussion of increased uncertainties due to resource scarcity, climate
change, global economic factors and changes in how people live and work.
2. The language in assumption #3 of the 1996 Plan regarding continued growth above
that of the state and nation should be changed or deleted (see discussion above in Evaluation Criteria #1.)
3. Current land use designations, public service and infrastructure, with some notable exceptions, are likely to be able to accommodate growth in the coming years,
especially since they were designed for the predicted, but unrealized, growth over
the last 20 years. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that, at this time, the City direct its limited resources to providing the policy basis for future
changes, as well as, meeting state requirements for the 2016 Update.
4. The Comprehensive Plan review and update needs to provide the basis for
community resiliency in these changing times. Whether all the substantive changes
can be made in the time frame allowed by the state is unclear, but the Planning Commission at least expects to be able to prioritize high need actions and to identify
specific work plan elements and schedule for the coming years.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 30 of 73
31
5. Have changes occurred in the community’s attitudes and basic values that
would necessitate amendments to the Plan? (§20.04.050(A)(1)(e) PTMC)
Discussion The Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect, to the greatest extent possible,
community-wide attitudes about the future growth and management of the City. The
public outreach and involvement process that led up to adoption of the 1996 Plan was exhaustive and unprecedented in the City’s history (more than 1,400 hours of informal
citizen “Coffee Hour” meetings, six Comprehensive Plan working committees, more than
50 public meetings, and a series of public hearings and workshops). During the last “Mid-Cycle” update to the Plan in 2008, the City held a series of three Town Meetings.
The issues identified at these meetings were broadly consistent with the key themes of community attitudes identified in 1996.
The Community Direction Statement (Vision Statement) provided in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan states:
“Port Townsend is our legacy for the future. Each generation makes its
contribution. This Comprehensive Plan is today’s attempt to define and refine our
legacy to Port Townsend. Our dream of how Port Townsend should be and could
be for generations to come is presented in this Plan. Such a plan is a statement
of confidence, optimism and belief in ourselves, a statement that our community
can change without losing its essential character.” p. III-1.
Port Townsend’s character is described as (pp. III 2-3):
Eastern Jefferson County’s economic and cultural center,
A community with a sense of history and place,
A places that prizes its natural setting,
A great place to live,
A town that cares, and
A town that works together.
At its core, the 1996 Plan is built on four fundamental concepts (pp. II 3-4):
Maintaining our small town character,
Achieving a better balance between jobs and housing,
Accommodating Port Townsend’s share of county-wide growth, and
Providing public facilities and services within the City’s financial resources and capacity.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 31 of 73
32
The public participation efforts accompanying the 2016 Update revealed the emergence of additional concerns, but the basic attitudes and values remain the same.
Participants in the July 2015 Town Meeting prioritized the keys issues of concern to them as follows (issues that have emerged since the 1996 Plan and are not identified in
the basic assumptions for the Comprehensive Plan are in bold, italics and underlined):
Rank Key Issue Priority Tally
1 Transition and Community Resilience
Transition away from fossil fuel dependence
Promote local sustainability
Foster community resilience
47
2 Housing
Provide adequate supply
Promote affordable housing
Facilitate housing for low income and special needs
Improve housing stock
42
3 Jobs/Economy
Foster a balanced, diversified and sustainable local economy
Value education
Strengthen marine trades/historic district
Support small scale businesses
Year round tourism
Adequate land and infrastructure
Responsive and efficient permitting
40
4 Improve Transportation Options
Safe, integrated multi-modal transportation system
Create a safe and convenient environment for walking and bicycling
Promote transit and ferry use and links to alternative modes
Manage parking
20
5 Quality of Life
Strive to be a walkable town with park and recreation facilities that accommodate a citizenry diverse in age, interests, income levels and
abilities
19
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 32 of 73
33
Results of an online survey asking for the top five issues needing improvement identified:
Areas needing improvement Number of
Responses
Housing affordability 464
Access to goods and services 341
Recreational opportunities for youth and families 329
Housing – variety of choices 305
Sustainable community 256
Transportation alternatives(e.g., walkways/bike lanes/transit) 253
Recreational opportunities for adults 139
This same survey identified the biggest areas of concern about Port Townsend’s future.
Biggest concerns about the future Number of
Responses
Lack of family wage jobs 370
Affordable housing 323
Losing young families 264
Cost of living 258
Education (K-12) 193
Losing our unique character and quality of life 133
Economy 106
Climate change impacts 100
Additional information regarding public opinion can be found in the meeting materials for a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting held on August 10, 2015.
(http://cityofpt.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=1130)
Planning Commission Findings 1. The core values and mission of our 2015 community remain very similar to those of
the 1996 community. 2. The biggest new issue regards whether our community is resilient and sustainable
enough to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances and to future changes that are unknown or unpredictable, but that assuredly will occur in the next 20 years and
further into the future.
3. The current Comprehensive Plan calls for a variety of housing choices and the
provision of affordable housing throughout all geographic and economic segments of
the community. Yet, concerns about housing affordability and availability have risen dramatically over the last 20 years. Young families, low-income adults, and
individuals with special needs are facing what some have called a crisis in our
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 33 of 73
34
community. The objectives of the 1996 Plan regarding housing affordability have not been achieved.
4. Non-motorized transportation policies are included in the current Comprehensive Plan. The majority of the goals and policies, however, relate to the automobile. Yet,
more people want greater, non-automobile based options. Port Townsenders are
choosing different modes of transportation, choosing to live closer to work and services, and/or to telecommute. Promoting improved facilities for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit users not only yields health benefits, but it also benefits the environment especially in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
5. The current Comprehensive Plan gives attention to issues of jobs and the economy. Yet, in Port Townsend and Jefferson County employment, incomes and public
revenues have been severely affected by the Great Recession of 2007‐09 and its
continuing aftermath. Unlike much of the state, our area has yet to recover from the
recession. Continuing to promote business growth and the provision of “family wage jobs” within the context of our small town character remain problematic. The City has
not achieved the jobs/housing balance envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
6. As the Planning Commission considered these issues, examined the data and
listened to members of the public, it became increasingly obvious that separating out one issue was not only difficult, but counterproductive. For example, it was hard to look at ways to increase housing options and affordability without addressing jobs
and economic development opportunities. All issues were inextricably intertwined with each other.
Preliminary Recommendations
1. The 2016 Update should provide policy language that provides a basis for
addressing all of these issues. Work that cannot be done within the timeframe of the 2016 update should be targeted as specific issue areas to be addressed in future
years.
2. Gaps and barriers in the existing Comprehensive Plan that interfere with the
achievement of the issues discussed above should be reviewed and addressed.
3. New approaches are needed to address a number of issues. For example, up zoning
existing land use designations to provide more multi-family units, allowing zero lot
line set-backs, lifting restrictions on ADU’s (accessory dwelling units), allowing alternative housing (e.g., tiny housing), examining options for domestic re-use of
gray water should be considered and their potential to improve housing affordability
evaluated.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 34 of 73
35
6. Does a change (or lack of change) in circumstances reveal that Plan
amendments are necessary? (§20.04.050(A)(1)(f) PTMC)
Discussion
As addressed under the assessment criteria above, circumstances have changed materially since the Plan was adopted in 1996 and updated in the 2008 mid-cycle
assessment. (See the “Changing Circumstances” memorandum included as an Appendix to this Assessment.)
Global trends as well as circumstances at the City level will require considerable thought about policy changes and the leadership role of the City. Throughout the Commission
and public discussions of current issues and concerns a number of themes arose again
and again. And repeatedly, we heard about the uncertainties facing our community in terms of population growth, climate change impacts, economic opportunities and living
wage jobs, availability of affordable housing, and changes in the demographic of the City
towards an older population.
Events of this current 2015 year illustrate the significance and possible severity of
changing circumstances: a severe drought and water shortages; massive and record setting wild fires raging through forests across the state; large salmon mortalities in
streams and hatcheries; the strongest summer storm in the history of the Pacific
Northwest, and the highest monthly global temperatures (July 2015) in 4,000 years (NOAA data).
Planning Commission Findings
1. Circumstances have changed since the Plan was last updated. The converging issues of economy, energy and environment compel the City to begin planning for
the possibility of an economically and resource constrained future and a future during
which the multitude of factors related to changes in our global climate impact our local community.
2. Perhaps more than ever, key issues combined with the likely impacts of climate changes, result in an interweaving of problems, causes, and solutions. As a result, it
is exceedingly difficult and unrealistic to try to clearly separate how we think about
issues into discrete silos. Yet, these issues must be addressed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 35 of 73
36
Preliminary Recommendations 1. Although it may be tempting to just meet the state mandated changes to the
Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission urges that the City act responsibly to
take specific steps to address the challenges of the next twenty years and the associated concerns of our citizens.
2. The work program for the 2016 Plan update and beyond must provide a framework to begin preparing Port Townsend for transition and resilience. The public comments
received to date provide a number of specific suggested action items including defining a new plan element addressing resiliency, developing goals and policies to advance Port Townsend as a “Green City”, strengthening the City’s Non-Motorized
Transportation Advisory Board, incorporating the recommendations of the Climate Action Committee into the Comprehensive Plan, and adopting ordinances to promote
and protect opportunities for increased local agriculture and associated services.
As part of the 2016 update, the Planning Commission would like to see general policy language added to advance all of these issues with more specific detail to
follow in subsequent years.
3. Specific language and actions addressing local resiliency and sustainability and to
adaptation to the impacts of climate changes need to be added to the language of
the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, specifically in the Introduction, Community Direction, Land Use element, Housing Element, Transportation Element and Capital
Facilities Element of the Plan. Recommendations from the Climate Action Committee
and the Local 20/20 Climate Change Preparation Group should be evaluated for inclusion in the 2016 Update and work plan. Another valuable source for specific
actions for the City to consider is contained within the climate adaption plan being developed under the auspices of the North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development (NOPRCD, also known as the North Olympic
Peninsula Development Council). 4. Given the highly interconnected nature of the issues identified in this assessment
and given the significance of all of them, the Commission is not recommending any specific prioritization of issues, other than making certain that all of the state
mandated amendments are addressed. Rather, the Commission suggests that the
Comprehensive Plan should be examined through the lens of resiliency and general policy language be included to address any gaps; wherever possible within the 2016
timeframe specific language be changed when there appears to be general
community support; and that issues that cannot be adequately addressed in the 2016 timeframe that the City “bookmark” these items for work in future years.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 36 of 73
37
7. Do inconsistencies exist between the Plan and the GMA or
Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County that must be
remedied? (§20.04.050(A)(1)(f) PTMC)
Discussion A preliminary evaluation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations has been completed. A number of inconsistencies with the GMA have been
identified through use of the “Periodic Update Checklist for Cities” prepared by the Department of Commerce (June 2013). Specific amendments have been outlined in the
recommended work program to address and eliminate these inconsistencies.
No inconsistencies with the Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson County have been
identified at the time of this writing.
Planning Commission Findings
1. Inconsistencies have been identified by City staff and consultants between the Plan
and Development Regulations and the GMA. These “mandatory” amendments are required by the State for compliance with the GMA.
Preliminary Recommendations
1. The Commission recommends that all of the identified amendments required to
maintain GMA consistency be addressed in the timeframe required by the state. However, the Commission also concludes that completion of the mandatory
amendments be only a part of the 2016 Update work plan (see recommendations
under Evaluation Criterion #6).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 37 of 73
38
MANDATORY AMENDMENTS
REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE GMA
Chapter V – The Land Use Element
1. A consistent population projection must be used throughout the Plan, which
should be consistent with the Office of Financial Management (OFM) forecast for Jefferson County and County’s sub-county allocation of that forecast. The City has proposed use of the OFM mid-range projection, and use of a sub-county
allocation methodology similar to that used under the prior forecast. (For background, please refer to County Resolution No. 55-03, September 22, 2003).
If agreed to by the County, this would necessitate use of a revised population
target of 12,165 for Port Townsend throughout the Plan. This represents anticipated population growth of 3,052 persons from a 2010 “base year”
population of 9,113. This directs 31.76% of projected countywide growth for the
period to Port Townsend; overall, Jefferson County would continue to maintain a 70% urban, 30% rural allocation by planning to accommodate 2,884 persons
within the unincorporated Tri-Area UGA and the Port Ludlow and Brinnon MPRs.
See RCW 43.62.035 and WAC 365-196-405(f).
2. The Comprehensive Plan public participation process, detailed in Land Use
Element Goal 15 and Policies 15.1-15.5 requires critical review and revision to ensure its conformance with RCW 36.70A.130(2), as amended, as well
§§20.04.020 and 20.04.035 PTMC. Presently, the Municipal Code appears to more faithfully reflect the statutory requirements than the Plan. Consideration should be given to modifying the Plan policies to better align with the statutory
requirements, differentiating between annual amendments, periodic updates, and emergency amendments. See also, RCW 36.70A.020(11) and WAC 365-196-600(3).
3. Land Use Element Policies 2.8 and 16.7 require critical review and assessment
to ensure that they provide sufficient guidance to ensure that both regulatory and
administrative actions taken by the City do not result in unconstitutional takings of private property. It is recommended that specific policy guidance be included that
outlines the analysis the City will conduct to avoid both “facial” (prospective) and
“as applied” (retrospective) takings. See RCWs 36.70A.020(6) and 36.70A.370, as well as Attorney General’s Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional
Takings of Private Property (2006).
Chapter VI – The Housing Element
4. An updated inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs over the planning period. The anticipated population for the year 2036 (11,805) is
lower than was forecast in the current Plan for 2024 (13,329). Accordingly, an updated inventory and analysis would be expected to reflect lower aggregate housing demand than the current Plan. Because of this lower overall housing
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 38 of 73
39
demand, a simplified inventory format would appear justified. See RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a) and WAC 365-196-410(2)(b) and (c).
5. Include provisions for temporary encampments for the homeless pursuant to RCW 36.01.290(WICA)
Chapter VII – The Transportation Element
6. An updated inventory of air, water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit routes, state-owned transportation facilities, and
general aviation airports is required. See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B) and WAC 365-196-430.
7. New or revised policy language should be contemplated that specifies actions that will be employed by the City to bring locally owned transportation facilities
and services to established levels of service (LOS). This requirement is a
consequence of amendments to RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B-D) in 2005. The guidance provided in Transportation Element policies 8.1 through 8.8 arguably
may suffice; however, critical review and evaluation against the revised statutory
language is necessary. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires local governments, at a minimum, to adopt Level of Service (LOS) standards for
arterials and transit routes (RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B)). See RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii) and WAC 365-196-430.
8. An updated forecast of traffic (through at least 2026) must be prepared, including
the land use assumptions used in estimating travel. See RCWs 36.70A.070(6)(a)(i) and 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(E), and WAC 365-196-430(2)(f).
9. An updated projection of state and local system needs to meet current and future demand is required. See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(F), and WAC 365-196-
430(2)(f).
10. An updated analysis of future funding capabilities, to judge needs against
probable funding resources is necessary. See RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(A), and WAC 365-196-430(2)(k)(iv).
11. An updated multi-year financing plan must be prepared, based on the needs identified in the Plan, the relevant parts of which serve as the basis for the 6-year
street, road or transit program. See RCWs 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv)(B) and
35.77.010, and WAC 365-196-430(2)(k)(ii).
12. An updated description of intergovernmental coordination efforts should be
incorporated, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions and
how they are consistent with the regional transportation plan. See RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(v), RCW 35.77.010, and WAC 365-196-430(2)(a)(iv).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 39 of 73
40
Capital Facilities & Utilities Element
13. An updated inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public must be
completed. For example, the inventory should be updated to reflect changes in the ownership of facilities since 2005 (Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park, City Dock,
Union Wharf, etc.). See RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) and WAC 365-196-415(b).
14. A forecast of needed capital facilities is required, based upon the projected
population at the end of the planning period and adopted levels of service (LOS). As was the case with the housing inventory, the anticipated population projection would be expected to decrease the demand and need for expanded capital
facilities. See RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b) and WAC 365-196-415(b).
15. A six-year funding plan identifying sources of public money to finance planned
capital facilities is necessary. Because the City does this on an annual basis as part of its budget process, this requirement should not add to staff’s baseline
workload. See RCW 36.70A.070(3)(d), 36.70A.120 and WAC 365-196-415.
Required Amendments to Implementing Regulations
The purpose of reviewing and amending the City’s implementing regulations concurrent with plan amendments is to ensure that the code is consistent with, and successfully
implements, the GMA Comprehensive Plan. Although the GMA precludes plan
amendments from occurring more frequently than once annually (RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)), there is no such restriction for regulatory amendments, provided that
such amendments do not create inconsistencies with the Plan. City staff has maintained an extensive “running list” of potential amendments to the Port
Townsend Municipal Code. Nearly all of these potential amendments deal with procedural issues, definitions, and clarifying confusing or internally inconsistent code language. None of these potential code amendments would appear to be required to
maintain consistency with either the GMA, as amended, or the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City’s focus during the Update process be
centered upon the GMA consistency issues outlined below, and that other code
amendments be addressed outside the 2016 Update.
16. An ongoing requirement of the GMA is for local jurisdictions to periodically review
and evaluate their adopted critical areas policies and regulations. The City last completed a comprehensive update of its Critical Areas regulations (codified in
Chapter 19.05 PTMC) in 2007 at the time of adoption of its new Shoreline
Management Master Program. As part of the periodic update, the City is again required to review, and if necessary, update its critical areas policies and
regulations. This includes the requirement to include the best available science
(BAS). See RCW 36.70A.172. Any deviations from science-based recommendations should be identified, assessed and explained (Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 365-195-915). Accordingly, it is recommended that the City seek professional peer review of Chapter 19.05 PTMC to ascertain whether or not it continues to reflect the best available science for the
designation and protection of critical areas.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 40 of 73
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 41 of 73
42
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lance Bailey, DSD Director
Judy Surber, Planning Manager
Eric Toews, Cascadia Community Planning Services
DATE: June 24, 2015
RE: 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update ‐ Changing Circumstances & Emerging
Trends: a review of Key Data to Inform Policy Choices
The Planning Context
Port Townsend is special to us. This is where our friends and families live, and it is a
wonderful place to live, work and recreate. We share a sense of gratitude for having the
good fortune to live here – as well as a deep sense of responsibility to do what we can to
pass on an equally abundant and healthy community to the generations that will follow
us. In these times, doing so is no small task.
In the past, our success as a community has been dependent upon all of us working
together. Looking ahead, multiple lines of data suggest that we live on the edge of a
trying, uncertain and transformative time in Port Townsend’s, and human, history. Our
community, state, nation, and world face unprecedented challenges.
It is in this context that Port Townsend must update its Comprehensive Plan. The
“Update” is needed both to maintain technical compliance with the Growth Management
Act (GMA), and to identify and address pressing community needs. The information
presented in this document is intended to help the public and decision‐makers assess
whether the assumptions underpinning the City’s current Comprehensive Plan remain
valid, or whether emerging trends suggest that amendments are needed.
Throughout this Update process, our challenge is to understand the root causes of the
issues we confront, to protect our community and mitigate risks as much as we can, and
to control those effects we can. With challenge comes opportunity, and the Plan Update
APPENDIX
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 42 of 73
43
offers the chance for us to outline a positive vision for how the City can prepare its
operations, and the community as a whole, to be more balanced, resilient and secure.
The Data Tell a Tale
The Big Picture – Global Trends
The next twenty years are likely to be very different from the last twenty years. From
population growth, to energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth,
converging lines of evidence suggest that unsustainable trends are catching up with us
and are likely to impact our community within a very narrow window of time – the next
twenty years. A few of these “meta” trends are highlighted below. Taken together, they
strongly suggest that we are entering an age of consequences.
World Population Growth
As recently as the turn of the 19th century, there were only about 1 billion people on the
planet. Today, the world’s population is over 7.2 billion, and is projected by the United
Nations to exceed 9.1 billion by 2050. (Source: US Census). With both more people and
longer lifetimes, humanity’s absolute numbers continue to rise, even though the number
of children per women has been cut in half since 1950. (Source: “7 Billion and Counting,”
Scientific American, October 27, 2011).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 43 of 73
44
FIGURE 1 – WORLD POPULATION GROWTH IN CONTEXT
Port Townsend’s growth and development is a microcosm of the world’s exponential
population growth. A Port Townsend population of 264 is first noted in the U.S. Census
of 1860. By 1890 the population had increased to 4,558. In the decade between 1880
and 1890 alone, the City’s population grew by an astounding 400%. Over the period
1860 to 2010, the City’s population grew an average of 2.39% per year, a population
doubling time of roughly once every 30 years. (Source: US Census).
Figure 2 below shows the exponential growth of the world’s population from early in the
industrial revolution to the turn of the 21st century.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 44 of 73
45
FIGURE 2 – WORLD POPULATION GROWTH – 1820‐2000
Sources: World population growth based on Angus Maddison estimates, Professor Emeritus, Groningen University; and Gail
Tverberg, www.ourfiniteworld.com.
World Energy Consumption
Fossil fuels (e.g., oil, coal, natural gas) have been essential for economic growth for the
past two centuries, and remain the key ingredient powering modern economies. The
reality of dwindling supplies of affordable and easily accessible hydrocarbons is now
internationally recognized, but few national, state or local governments have developed
a “Plan B” to cope with a future with less energy.
Figure 3 on the following page depicts the growth and components of energy
consumption over the past two centuries, and closely tracks the world’s population
growth over the same period shown in Figure 2, above. The largest increase in energy
consumption has been in the post World War II years. As noted previously, access to
increasing flows of energy has been closely correlated with population growth.
Over the past two centuries of industrialization, the supply of available fuels has
gradually increased to meet demand. However, oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and
since that time have been outpaced by consumption by nearly 4 to 1 each year.
Today, many industry analysts expect a peak in aggregate fossil fuel production to
occur within the next decade, proceeding thereafter to a long and permanent
decline. Such a decline has profound implications for our future, as fossil fuels
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 45 of 73
46
presently constitute roughly 87% of the world’s primary energy supply. (Source:
Worldwatch Institute, Vital Signs 2013, Volume 20: The Trends That Are Shaping Our
Future).
FIGURE 3 – SOURCES OF WORLD ENERGY – 1820‐2000
World Energy Consumption by Source, based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects
together with BP Statistical Data.
Figure 4 on the following page shows the composite fossil fuel projections of Jean
Laherrere (a petroleum engineer and consultant and advisor to the UK’s Oil Depletion
Analysis Centre), the Energy Watch Group (an international network of scientists and
parliamentarians based in Germany), and the authors of the blog “The Oil Drum”
(website published by the Colorado based Institute for the Study of Energy and Our
Future).
These projections suggest that the cheap and easy to access hydrocarbons are
running low, and that economically recoverable fossil fuels are depleting rapidly.
The economic risks of fossil fuel depletion – to individuals, businesses, and our
community ‐ are enormous. In a future with less and less energy to fuel economic
growth, our living standards and tax base will steadily erode. There is also the
potential that a global financial crisis could abruptly jolt the world economy into
turmoil, as occurred in 2008.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 46 of 73
47
FIGURE 4 – FOSSIL FUEL SUPPLY PROJECTIONS
Sources: Olduvai Revisited 2008, Jean Laherrere, The Energy Watch Group, and the authors of the OilDrum.com.
World Economic Growth & Energy Use
Just as increasing flows of fossil fuel energy is linked to population growth, it is also tied
to economic expansion. In fact, energy is the “master resource” of every modern
economy, enabling work to be accomplished. The tight correlation between energy use
(mainly fossil fuels) and economic growth over the past two centuries is depicted in
Figure 5 on the following page.
The world’s money system, which assumes never ending economic and monetary
expansion in order to repay principal plus interest, places impossible demands on a
finite world. There is substantial risk that exponentially rising levels of debt, based on
assumptions of future economic growth to fund repayment, could shudder to a halt or
even reverse over the course of the planning period. Unfortunately, our financial system
does not function in “park” or “reverse.” In consequence, the risk of substantial economic
contraction over the next twenty (20) years is significant.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 47 of 73
48
FIGURE 5 ‐ ENERGY CONSUMPTION & ECONOMIC GROWTH
Source: Energy Return on Investment, Peak Oil, and the End of Economic Growth, David J. Murphy and Charles A. S. Hall (2011), in
“Ecological Economics Reviews”, Robert Costanza, Karin Limburg & Ida Kubiszewski, Eds. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1219: 52–72.
CO2 Concentrations & A Warming World
There is no doubt that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human
activities have risen dramatically over the past two centuries of exponentially expanding
fossil fuel use. And, although average global temperature fluctuates every year, a
snapshot of the global temperature trend is undeniable, particularly since 1970. (Source:
Rising Global Temperatures and CO2, Climate Central, May 16, 2014).
There are a number of factors that influence temperatures in different regions across the
globe: El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, aerosols from natural and human sources,
and solar cycles, to name just a few. These factors taken individually and together
account for the year‐to‐year variability seen in global average temperatures, but fail to
explain the 1.6F warming since 1880. (Ibid.).
However, overlaying the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shows a clear
correlation with that rise in temperatures. Reams of peer‐reviewed research, basic
physics, the ability to track the specific chemical fingerprint of fossil fuel‐driven carbon,
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 48 of 73
49
and the fact that no models can replicate this century's warming without pumping up
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, give scientists confidence
that human carbon emissions are driving the globe’s temperature higher. (Ibid.).
FIGURE 6 –RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 & GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
Other indicators such as ocean acidification, increasing deep ocean heat, melting ice and
permafrost, shrinking snow pack, and sea level rise further make the case that the
additional carbon dioxide is affecting the global climate system. If greenhouse gas
emissions continue to rise, the globe’s average temperature is projected to follow suit.
The worst‐case emissions scenario, the track that we are currently on, estimates a rise in
temperature of 4.7° to 8.6°F by 2100. (Ibid.).
Anthropogenic climate change portends accelerating climate effects over the coming
decades (e.g., Arctic Sea ice loss, droughts, heat waves, crop failures, rising sea levels,
floods), food and water shortages, geopolitical instability, and widespread threats to the
viability of public infrastructure and governance. Anticipated local and regional (i.e.,
North Olympic Peninsula) climate impacts are discussed under “The Local Picture”,
below.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 49 of 73
50
The Local Picture – Community Trends
At its core, the 1996 Plan sought to accomplish four key objectives:
1. Maintain Our Small Town Character;
2. Achieve a Better Balance Between Jobs and Housing;
3. Accommodate Port Townsend’s Share of County‐Wide Growth; and
4. Provide Public Facilities and Services Within the City’s Financial Resources.
To what degree has the City succeeded in achieving these objectives? The data trends set
forth below suggest mixed results. First, the City has succeeded in maintaining much of
its small town character. However, this may largely be due to slower than anticipated
growth, rather than through the successful development of “mixed use centers” which
were seen in 1996 as a central strategy for preserving Port Townsend’s small town feel.
These centers were envisioned as a way to accommodate population growth in distinct,
walk‐able areas that combined commercial and residential uses, thereby creating
distinct new neighborhoods. Although the City retains much of its small town charm,
none of these mixed‐use areas has yet been developed.
Second, the “gap” between housing prices and wages and incomes appears to have
grown wider, not narrower, over the past two decades. Additionally, wealth inequality
has grown, and a significantly higher percentage of residents live in poverty and cannot
afford housing. Thus, the trend towards a retirement residential community with limited
family‐wage job opportunities has not been reversed, despite the City’s efforts to permit
a wider variety of more affordable housing types and to expand areas zoned for
commercial and manufacturing use.
Third, although the City has planned and provided the infrastructure necessary to
accommodate 36% of the anticipated countywide population growth, Port Townsend’s
population as a percentage of the County has fallen over the last two decades, as more
people have chosen to live in the unincorporated areas of Jefferson County.
As a whole, the local trend data indicate some successes, although the promise of the
1996 Plan has yet to be fully achieved. However, when these local trends are considered
in the broader context of anticipated energy depletion, economic contraction, and the
mounting costs and consequences of climate change adaptation and responding to
environmental damage, the sobering scope of the challenges we face is revealed.
Climate Change Impacts
Farmers, fishermen, natural resource managers, public health practitioners, utility
managers, emergency responders, coastal residents, businesses and others, have already
noticed changes in the climate and extreme weather conditions on the North Olympic
Peninsula, including Port Townsend. These changes are part of the larger trends
observed globally.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 50 of 73
51
Anticipated Changes in Sea Level
A recent report (January 2015) prepared as part of the North Olympic Peninsula
Resource Conservation and Development Council’s project, “Planning for Climate Change
on the North Olympic Peninsula” graphically presents “low” and “high” severity scenarios
for sea level rise and coastal flooding risk over the coming century (see Figures 7 and 8,
on pages 10 and 11, below). The mapped scenarios are based principally on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report. The data
indicate that our community is likely to face escalating challenges as we seek to defend,
retreat, and reimagine our relationship with the shoreline over the coming decades.
Whether these changes become obvious during the planning period or later in the 21st
century, the mounting costs and consequences of adapting to climate disruption will be
substantial and unrelenting. The long‐term implications for the City’s core infrastructure
(e.g., water system, wastewater treatment plant) and economy (e.g., maritime
manufacturing areas, historic downtown core, Fort Worden State Park) are profound.
Temperature Trends & Extremes
Over the last century, average annual air temperature in the Pacific Northwest has
increased by 1.3°Farenheit (F) (i.e., slightly less than the global average of 1.6F). Average
annual temperature for the 2050s is projected to increase 4.5°F to 5.8°F (relative to
1950‐1999) depending on future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (University of
Washington Climate Impacts Group 2013). Although this increase may not at first blush
seem significant, it is comparable to the difference in average annual temperatures that
separates our time from the last ice age. Overall, our community is expected to see
markedly warmer, wetter winters, and hotter, dryer summers. (Source: Projected
Climate Change & Impacts for the North Olympic Peninsula, Adaptation International,
January 2015).
Compared to many areas, however, the climate models suggest that the North Olympic
Peninsula and Port Townsend may somewhat protected from the extremes experienced
elsewhere, due to our location close to the North Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, summer
high temperatures could increase substantially, over 10 degrees Fahrenheit or more,
although no significant trend has yet been observed in daytime heat events (over the
period 1895‐2011). Changes in minimum temperatures are already being observed. The
frost‐free season has lengthened by 35 days relative to the historical period 1895‐2011,
and nighttime heat events have become more frequent in Western Washington State.
(Source: University of Washington Climate Impacts Group 2013).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 51 of 73
52
FIGURE 7 ‐ “LOW SEVERITY” SEA LEVEL RISE & COASTAL FLOOD RISK
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 52 of 73
53
FIGURE 8 ‐ “HIGH SEVERITY” SEA LEVEL RISE & COASTAL FLOOD RISK
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 53 of 73
54
Figures 9 and 10, below, show expected monthly average maximum and minimum air
temperatures for Jefferson County during four different time periods under two distinct
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenarios from the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report. The
“RCP 4.5” scenario assumes significantly reduced GHGs, while the “RCP 8.5” scenario
assumes a continuation of current levels of GHG emissions. Each solid line indicates an
average of 30 climate models, with their standard deviations shown by their respective
shaded envelopes. (Source: Projected Climate Change & Impacts for the North Olympic
Peninsula, Adaptation International, January 2015).
FIGURE 9 – PROJECTED CHANGES TO MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES
IN JEFFERSON COUNTY
Source: Projected Climate Change & Impacts for the North Olympic Peninsula, Adaptation International, January 2015.
FIGURE 10 – PROJECTED CHANGES TO MINIMUM TEMPERATURES
IN JEFFERSON COUNTY
Source: Projected Climate Change & Impacts for the North Olympic Peninsula, Adaptation International, January 2015.
Changes in Water Supply (the Hydrologic Regime)
In addition to changes in temperature and precipitation trends, and ocean conditions,
the “Planning for Climate Change on the North Olympic Peninsula Report” also anticipates
impacts specifically relevant to the City’s water resources, including shifting hydrologic
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 54 of 73
55
basin types and timing of seasonal stream flows. These anticipated changes are depicted
in Figure 11 on the following page. Warmer overall temperatures will drive historical
snow events towards the thaw threshold, leading to more precipitation throughout the
fall‐winter‐and spring falling as rain instead of snow. This shifting freezing threshold will
be particularly pronounced in those high elevation zones in the Olympic Mountains
where snowfall has historically maintained glaciers and influenced entire ecosystems as
a “partial‐snow” hydrologic basin. Figure 11, below, shows projected shifts in our State’s
hydrologic basin types.
Shifts in hydrologic basin types necessarily influence the way that the precipitation is
stored and the timing of its release and flow from high elevation sources to downstream
lowlands. The general projection of increased fall and winter precipitation and
decreased summer precipitation in the region, paired with the shift towards a more rain
dominant watershed, suggests long‐term changes to watershed flow on the North
Olympic Peninsula. Adapting to this changing hydrologic regime will be a persistent
challenge for City water resource managers. (Source: Projected Climate Change &
Impacts for the North Olympic Peninsula, Adaptation International, January 2015).
FIGURE 11 – SHIFTING HYDROLOGIC BASIN TYPES
Source: Projected Climate Change & Impacts for the North Olympic Peninsula, Adaptation International, January 2015.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 55 of 73
56
Population & Demographics
Population Changes Over the Past 24 Years
Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), past trends in the location of population and
employment growth are important to recognize. However, GMA planning was, and is,
intended to direct growth away from unincorporated rural areas and resource lands and
towards designated urban growth areas (UGAs) that can be more efficiently served with
public infrastructure.
Port Townsend’s population has grown consistently over the past 24 years, from 7,001
in 1990 (the year the GMA was adopted), to 9,355 today. This translates to a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.22%. The unincorporated population of Jefferson
County grew at an annual rate of 1.96% during the same period (i.e., 13,405 to 21,345).
During the 11‐year period between adoption of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in 1996
and the first significant Update in 2007, Port Townsend’s growth rate was just over 1%.
Over the entire planning period, the growth rate was slightly under 1% (0.87%). Figure
12 on page 16 shows the population growth trends in Jefferson County and Port
Townsend over the past 24 years.
Despite the policy goals of the GMA, and population allocations that have consistently
attempted to maintain or increase the City’s share of countywide population growth,
observed growth trends show the City’s share of Jefferson County’s overall population is
in steady decline, from nearly 34.6% in 1992 to 30.5% today. This reflects the broader
trend observed in the post‐war years, as the City’s share of Jefferson County’s population
plummeted from over 59% in 1950 to 38% in 1980. (Sources: Washington State Office
of Financial Management (OFM) ‐ April 1 Intercensal Estimates of Population and
Housing: 1990‐2000 and 2000‐2010; OFM State of Washington Population Trends
2014).
Components of Growth (Births, Deaths, In‐Migration)
As shown in Figure 12 on page 16, residual net migration has been the source of all of
the net increase in the County’s population since 1989‐90. (During the period 1989‐90
to 2013‐14, there were 1,712 more deaths than births (6,936 deaths versus 5,224
births) with 12,739 net in‐migrants. In fact, the last year births outpaced deaths in
Jefferson County was 1992‐93. (Source: OFM, Components of Population Change, 1989‐
90 to 2013‐14).
Age Distribution
The age distribution of Port Townsend’s population is similar to that of Jefferson County
as a whole. In both cases there is a high percentage of seniors (i.e., age 65 and older).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 56 of 73
57
Jefferson County’s figures show a somewhat higher percentage of seniors than those of
the City. In both instances, seniors as a percentage of the total population are
dramatically more than the Washington State average. The populations of Jefferson
County and Port Townsend are comprised of 26.3% and 24.6% seniors, respectively,
compared to 12.3% statewide. Unsurprisingly, Jefferson County has the state’s oldest
population, and the 10th oldest population of any county in the United States. The senior
populations of both Jefferson County and Port Townsend have grown steadily over the
period 1990 to 2010, when they were comprised of 20.8% and 19.5%, respectively.
Figure 13 on page 17 shows the age distribution of Washington State, Jefferson County,
and the City of Port Townsend. (Source: US Census).
The percentage of persons under 18 (dependents) in Port Townsend is 16.1%. This
figure is slightly higher than the percentage of persons under 18 in Jefferson County
(13.8% in 2013) and substantially lower than the statewide figure (23.5%). The under
18 component of the City’s population decreased markedly over the period 1990 to
2010, down from 24% of the total population in 1990. (Source: US Census).
Levels of Educational Attainment
Out of 7,398 persons aged 25 years or older in Port Townsend in 2013, 95.8% had high
school diplomas. Another 42.4% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. These figures are
high in comparison with the State of Washington as a whole. The State percentage of
persons 25 years or older with a high school diploma was 90.0%, and 31.9% had a
bachelor’s degree or higher. Over the period between 1990 and 2013, Port Townsend’s
population has not only grown older, but more educated. The steady rise in levels of
educational attainment is depicted in Figure 14 on page 17.
School Enrollment
As the percentage of Port Townsend’s population under 18 has diminished in recent
years, so too has the total estimated school enrollment, from roughly 20% in 2000
(1,697 of 8,334), to around 16% in the 2009‐2013 timeframe (i.e., 1,409 of and
estimated City population of 8,900). Figure 15 (see page 17, below), which is based on
both upon the 2000 US Census and the 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year
Estimates, shows falling enrollment in all categories except high school, college and
graduate school.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 57 of 73
58
FIGURE 12
PORT TOWNSEND & JEFFERSON COUNTY POPULATION TRENDS: 1990 ‐ 2014
Year Jefferson County Port Townsend Port Townsend as a
Percentage of the County
1990 20,406 (13,405)7,001
34.3%
1991 21,144 7,212
34.2%
1992 21,940 7,585 34.6%
1993 22,641 7,745 34.2%
1994 23,313 7,879 33.8%
1995 23,950 8,042 33.6%
1996 24,412 7,998 32.8%
1997 24,925 8,096 32.5%
1998 25,322 8,075 31.9%
1999 25,865 8,305 32.1%
2000 26,299 8,334 31.7%
2001 26,665 8,441 31.7%
2002 27,143 8,544 31.5%
2003 27,343 8,433 30.8%
2004 27,738 8,543 30.8%
2005 28,356 8,796 31.0%
2006 28,847 8,889 30.8%
2007 29,244 8,945 30.6%
2008 29,634 9,033 30.5%
2009 29,773 9,034 30.3%
2010 29,872 9,113 30.5%
2011 30,050 9,180 30.5%
2012 30,175 9,185 30.4%
2013 30,275 9,225 30.5%
2014 30,700 (21,345)9,355 30.5%
Sources: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) ‐ April 1 Intercensal Estimates of Population and Housing: 1990‐2000
and 2000‐2010; OFM State of Washington Population Trends 2014.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 58 of 73
59
FIGURE 13
2010 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION
Age WA State %Jefferson County %Port Townsend %
Under 5 6.5 3.6 4.0
5‐9 6.4 3.8 4.0
10‐14 6.5 4.6 4.9
15‐19 6.9 4.5 4.7
20‐24 6.9 3.7 3.8
25‐29 7.1 3.8 3.9
30‐34 6.7 4.0 4.1
35‐39 6.7 4.2 4.5
40‐44 6.8 4.9 4.9
45‐49 7.3 6.5 6.3
50‐54 7.4 8.6 8.5
55‐59 6.7 10.3 10.8
60‐64 5.7 11.4 11.1
65‐69 4.0 9.5 8.5
70‐74 2.8 6.3 5.3
75‐79 2.1 4.5 3.7
80‐84 1.7 3.2 3.1
85 and Over 1.7 2.8 4.0
Median Age 37.3 53.9 53.0
Source: 2010 US Census.
FIGURE 14
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT – POPULATION AGED 25 & OVER
WA State Port Townsend
1990 2013 1990 2013
High School Diplomas 83.8% 90.0% 87.6% 95.8%
Bachelor’s Degree or
Higher
22.9% 31.9% 27.7% 42.4%
Source: 1990 US Census and 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.
FIGURE 15
ESTIMATED CHANGES IN SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2000 ‐ 2013
Year 2000 2009‐2013
Total City Population 8,334 8,900
Population Over 3 Enrolled in
School
1,697 (20%of population) 1,409 (16% of population)
Nursery School/Pre‐School 190 68
Kindergarten 64 33
Grades 1‐8 767 566
Grades 9‐12 390 431
College/Graduate School 286 311
Source: 2000 US Census and 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 59 of 73
60
Median Income (Household & Family)
The American Community Survey estimates Port Townsend’s median household income
to be $41,033, and median family income to be $58,964 in 2013 inflation adjusted
dollars. Although income is an important measure of the ability to afford housing, it does
not provide a complete picture. A review of US Census data suggests that some Port
Townsend households may rely upon the conversion (i.e., selling off) of accumulated
assets in order to purchase homes in town. Figure 16, below, depicts Port Townsend’s
median household income in relation to that of Jefferson County and the State as a
whole.
FIGURE 16 – MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Source: Claritas, cited in the Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30, 2015,
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies
Sources of Personal Income
Due in large part to a high proportion of retirees, investment income represents the greatest
share of personal income in Jefferson County – exceeding wage and salary income. An
estimated 60% of personal income in Jefferson County is accounted for by investment
income together with transfer payments – as compared with 36% statewide. (Source:
Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30, 2015, E.D. Hovee &
Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies).
Wage and salary income represents only 26% of personal income in Jefferson County as
compared to 46% statewide. The wage/salary share of income has also been dropping more
rapidly locally in recent years than has been the case for the rest of Washington State. The
rapidity of this decline is attributable both to stagnant employment and lower average wage
levels for those who are employed in Jefferson County. (Ibid.).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 60 of 73
61
FIGURE 17 ‐ PERSONAL INCOME DISTRIBUTION (2013)
Jefferson County
Washington State
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30, 2015,
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies.
Persons & Families Living in Poverty
Approximately 17.1% of Port Townsend’s population lives on incomes below the federal
poverty level, significantly higher than the statewide percentage of 13.4%. Roughly
10.7% of Port Townsend’s families live below the poverty level, which again, is higher
than the statewide percentage of 9.0%. Moreover, nearly one‐quarter (23.6%) of
families with children (18 and under) live in poverty, a full 9.0% higher than the
statewide percentage (14.6%). These levels of deprivation are contrasted against the
approximately one‐quarter (23.6%) of Port Townsend households earning more than
$75,000 per year. (Source: US Census).
Census blocks in the western portion of the City, south of Hastings Avenue, and the
Castle Hill area west of Sheridan Avenue, appear to be the most economically
disadvantaged, with the highest percentages of children in grade school and middle
school.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 61 of 73
62
Economic & Employment Characteristics
Port Townsend and Jefferson County employment, incomes and public revenues have
been severely affected by the Great Recession of 2007‐09 and its continuing aftermath.
Unlike much of the state, our area has yet to recover from the recession. The county
experienced a 15% drop in employment that extended from 2006‐12. Only in 2013 did
recovery begin to get underway, but only barely. The Jefferson County unemployment
rate remains 33% above the rest of the state, and wages and incomes are lower. (Source:
Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30, 2015, E.D. Hovee &
Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies).
As of 2013, Jefferson County had 7,787 covered jobs (covered by unemployment
insurance). This represents less than 0.3% of the statewide employment base of nearly 3
million, as compared with Jefferson County’s 0.4% of population statewide. The 98368
zip code, which includes the City of Port Townsend and much of the more developed
unincorporated portion of northeast Jefferson County, accounted for 5,549 jobs – over
70% of the countywide employment total. (Ibid.).
A review of employment data at the local, county and statewide level reveals four key
concerns:
1. High levels of unemployment with a declining job base;
2. Overconcentration of the employment base in lower paid service jobs with
inadequate representation of higher paid industrial employment;
3. Resulting low median wage; and
4. Limited prospects for future employment growth in the absence of shovel ready
industrial sites for development. (Ibid.).
Labor Force Participation Rate
For Port Townsend, a relatively low 56% of persons age 16+ are in the labor force. The
proportion is even lower at 50% countywide. Statewide, the comparable figure is 65%
(see Figure 18 on page 21, below). Of those employed, 26‐27% of Port Townsend and
25% of workers countywide are self‐employed, more than double the 10% statewide
average. (Ibid.).
Countywide Employment Trends
Figure 19 on page 22, portrays year‐by‐year changes in countywide employment over
an 8‐year period starting in 2005. Figure 20, on page 22, is a comparison of annual
unemployment rates for Jefferson County relative to statewide averages.
As depicted by the first graph, countywide employment peaked in 2006, declining in
every subsequent year until experiencing a small rebound in 2013. From 2006‐2012,
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 62 of 73
63
FIGURE 18 – PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION IN LABOR FORCE
Source: Claritas, cited in Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30, 2015,
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies.
Jefferson County experienced a net loss of over 1,380 jobs – a 15% decline in total
employment. Like Jefferson County, the rest of the state was affected by job loss during
the recession. However, the duration of employment decline was much shorter.
Statewide, job losses were experienced in only over two years (from 2008‐10), followed
by a net gain of over 150,000 jobs in three years since 2010. (Ibid.).
Jefferson County unemployment rates were as low as 4.8% in 2007 at the onset of the
Great Recession. Subsequently, local unemployment rose rapidly, peaking at 9.9% in
2010 and 2011. Unemployment remained at 9% or more through 2013. Only in recent
months has the Jefferson County jobless rate started to decline – down to 8.1% as of
November 2014. (Ibid.).
Over the last three years, Jefferson County seasonally unadjusted rates were at 9.9%,
9.6% and 9.0% for 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectively – averaging 9.5% over all three
years. For Washington State, comparable rates were at 9.2%, 8.1% and 7.0% the –
averaging 8.1% over all three years. As of November 2014 (the most recent month for
which data is available), Jefferson County’s unemployment rate was 8.1%, 33% above
the statewide rate of 6.1%. (Ibid.).
Prior to and even into the recession of the last decade, unemployment rates in Jefferson
County roughly matched those of the entire state. However, the gap between local and
statewide unemployment increased starting in 2011. Even with the recent 2014
reduction of unemployment, the countywide unemployment rate remains 33% above
the statewide rate. (Ibid.).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 63 of 73
64
FIGURE 19 – JEFFERSON COUNTY EMPLOYMENT GROWTH & DECLINE 2005‐2013
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD), cited in Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility
Study, January 30, 2015, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies
FIGURE 20 – COMPARATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 2005‐2013
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD), cited in Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility
Study, January 30, 2015, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 64 of 73
65
Employment Sectors & Wages
Occupations which are well represented with Port Townsend residents, as compared
with the entire state, include persons employed in the following sectors:
Arts, entertainment, sports;
Community and social services;
Food preparation and serving;
Health practitioners, techs, and support workers;
Life, physical and social sciences;
Management positions Office and administrative support;
Sales; and
Personal care and service. (Ibid.).
By comparison, city residents (but not those in the county) tend to be underrepresented
in occupations such as farming/fishing/forestry, construction/extraction, and
production. Both City and County residents are also underrepresented in other
industrial related occupations such as building grounds maintenance, maintenance
repair, transportation and moving. This occupational mix is consistent with an overall
lower average wage structure as is further detailed below. (Ibid.).
E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies recently (January 2015) prepared
an Economic Feasibility Study (the “Feasibility Study”) for development of the Howard
Street Corridor. Their report contains a more detailed look at the current employment
and wage profile by industry sector that further illustrates the challenge of generating
additional and better quality jobs in Port Townsend and Jefferson County.
As of 2013, 1,087 firms in Jefferson County had payroll with 7,787 covered employees,
with an average wage of just under $34,500 per year. Despite economic recovery
elsewhere nationally and in Washington State, the number of covered jobs in Jefferson
County was 5% less in 2013 than it was four years earlier in 2009. (Ibid.).
Other employment characteristics noted by the Feasibility Study include the following:
Average firm size is relatively small at just seven employees per establishment –
about half the statewide average.
Countywide employment is heavily skewed to service industries. Compared to
the state, relatively high proportions of local jobs are found in the retail,
accommodation and food services, other services and government sectors that
account for about 60% of employment countywide versus just over 40%
statewide. The only one of these service sectors providing wages above the
countywide average is the government sector.
Traded sector jobs are underrepresented in industrial sectors including
construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation – and in service
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 65 of 73
66
sectors that often include traded sector activity such as information,
finance/insurance, and professional/technical services.
Traded sector activities generally pay more than the average for all jobs. While
manufacturing overall pays above the countywide average, there can be
considerable variation depending on the type of firm considered. Within
Jefferson County, workers in sectors such as food, beverage, printing and
fabricated metals tend to be paid below the countywide average while industrial
workers in sectors as in transportation equipment and other manufacturing
(including paper products) are paid well above average.
While detailed subsector information is not available for all sectors, similar
variation can be noted for other Jefferson County employment sectors. For
example, within the category of “other services,” the average annual wage ranges
from $11,500 for household workers to $36,500 for repair and maintenance
workers.
The countywide average annual (all sector) wage of $34,500 per year is only
65% that of the statewide average – due in large part to under‐representation of
traded sector employment. If government employment is excluded from the
average wage calculation, the wage average for all non‐governmental sectors in
Jefferson County comes in lower at $29,300 per year. (Ibid.).
Taken together, the high wage industry sectors of utilities, construction, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, information, finance/insurance, professional/technical services, and
government account for just over half (51%) of all employment in Jefferson County.
Higher wage jobs also appear to be more resilient, accounting for only one quarter of the
net job loss experienced countywide from 2009‐13. (Ibid.).
Annual per worker payroll also increased more rapidly in these high wage sectors – up
by $4,075 (+10%) per worker in four years as compared to a net gain of only $1,135
(+5%) in lower wage sectors of Jefferson County’s existing job base. (Ibid.).
Median Hourly Wage
When considered on an hourly basis, the median wage for Jefferson County is $19.33 per
hour, approximately 88% of the statewide median wage figure of $22.09 per hour.
(Source: Employment Securities Department).
Self‐Employed
Individuals who are self employed (e.g., sole proprietors) are often not covered by
unemployment insurance and so are not included in data produced by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS). However, self‐employed individuals represent an estimated 25%
of all employment in Jefferson County, well above the estimated 10% of self‐employed
workers statewide. (Source: Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 66 of 73
67
30, 2015, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies).
Based on income data of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), individuals who
are self‐employed have annual incomes estimated at less than 30% the incomes of wage
and salary employees. By comparison, incomes of the self‐employed statewide average
60% that of wage and salary employees. Persons who are self‐employed often work out
of their homes. This may be especially the case in the Port Townsend area due to
relatively low average annual incomes. (Ibid.).
Employment Outlook
In the State of Washington, 10‐year employment forecasts are prepared for economic
regions rather than on a county‐specific level. Jefferson County and Port Townsend is
included within the 3‐county Olympic Consortium that also includes Clallam and Kitsap
Counties. The most recent forecast was prepared by Employment Securities Department
(ESD) in May 2014 and covers a 10‐year time horizon extending from 2012‐22. (Source:
Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30, 2015, E.D. Hovee &
Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies).
The ESD forecast indicates a projected net gain for the three counties of 13,400 jobs
from 2012‐22 (see Figure 21 on the following page). This equates to an annual average
job growth rate of 1.1% per year. Job growth is projected to be somewhat more rapid in
the first five years, then somewhat slower thereafter. (Ibid.).
Sectors with above average rates of job growth are projected to include industrial
related sectors of construction and wholesale trade. Manufacturing and transportation
related functions are projected for below average rates of job growth. Of services with a
traded sector component, professional and business services offer the highest growth
potential. Traded sector jobs typically pay more and offer higher economic multipliers
because they bring in new income and wealth by selling to customers outside as well as
inside Jefferson County. (Ibid.).
Jefferson County currently accounts for 7% of employment in the 3‐county region. If
Jefferson County maintains this 7% share, about 940 added in‐county jobs could be
expected within this 10‐year period. Of this total projected job gain, 335 jobs could be
added in industrial and traded sector activities including construction, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, transportation/warehousing, information, financial and business
services. (Ibid.).
The regional forecast approach for the Olympic Consortium likely underestimates the
employment growth needed for our community in the years ahead. This is for two
policy‐related reasons: first, the need to recapture jobs lost during and subsequent to the
Great Recession; and second, the need to achieve and maintain a healthy jobs‐population
balance with continued population growth anticipated going forward. (Ibid.).
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 67 of 73
68
FIGURE 21 ‐ 10‐YEAR OLYMPIC CONSORTIUM EMPLOYMENT FORECAST 2012‐
2022
Employment Sector 2012 2022 Total
Growth
Average
Annual
Growth
Total Non‐Farm 112,500 125,900 13,40 1.1%
Natural Resources & Mining 500 500 0 0.0%
Construction 5,000 6,600 1,600 2,8%
Manufacturing 4,000 4,300 300 0.7%
Wholesale Trade 1,800 2,100 300 1.6%
Retail Trade 14,800 15,800 1,000 0.7%
Transportation, Warehousing & Utilities 1,400 1,500 100 0.7%
Information 1,500 1,600 100 0.6%
Financial Activities 4,000 4,400 400 1.0%
Professional & Business Services 8,700 10,700 2,000 2.1%
Education & Health Services 16,200 20,100 3,900 2.2%
Leisure & Hospitality 11,500 13,100 1,600 1.3%
Other Services 4,700 5,000 300 0.6%
Government 38,400 40,200 1,800 0.5%
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department (ESD), cited in Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30,
2015, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies.
Housing Characteristics
Housing Occupancy & Tenure
Whether people own or rent is one measure of what people prefer, and what they can
afford. The patterns of tenure indicate where housing demand is occurring and what the
trends are. Port Townsend’s renter households have increased by over 87% since 1990,
from 990 units to 1,852 in 2013. Owner households increased by 49% during the same
period, from 2,037 to 2,670. By 2013, owner households had dropped to 59% of all Port
Townsend households, down from 67% in 1990.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 68 of 73
69
FIGURE 22
HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE
Total Occupied Housing Units Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
1990
2013
%
Change
1990 2013 %
Change
1990
2013 %
Change
3,027
4,522
+49% 2,037 2,670 +31% 990
1,852 +87%
Sources: 1990 US Census and 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.
In 1990, only 253 of the dwelling units in Port Townsend were unoccupied (7.7% of
3,280 total units). By 2013, that number had increased to an estimated 619 of the City’s
housing units (12% of 5,141). This increase may reflect an increase in seasonal housing
units, as more people purchase second homes for vacation purposes.
Housing Types (Units per Structure)
Overall, the vast majority of Port Townsend residents live in single‐family homes on
relatively small lots (e.g., 5,000 s.f.). However, the relative proportions of single‐family
and multi‐family housing units have changed from 1990, principally due to the
construction of a number of multi‐family dwelling units following adoption of the 1996
Comprehensive Plan and zoning.
Multi‐family housing units have increased substantially (+663 units, or 121%) over the
period 1990 to 2013. Single‐family units have increased during the same period as well
(+1,267 units, or 50%). However, the rapid growth in multi‐family units suggests that
up‐zoning and more flexible development standards helped to address the chronic
shortage of modestly priced housing identified by the City in the mid‐1990s. None of the
City’s Mixed Use Centers, zoned for a combination of ground floor commercial use and
upper story multi‐family residential use, has developed as envisioned in the 1996 Plan.
Thus, all of the increase in multi‐family housing units since 1996 may be attributed to
new construction occurring within the City’s residential zoning districts and the Uptown
historic commercial district. Figure 23 shows the changes in housing types over the 23‐
year period ending in 2013.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 69 of 73
70
FIGURE 23
HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE
Unit Type 1990 2013 % Change
Total Units 3,280 5,141 +57%
Single‐Family 2,513 (76.6% of total) 3,780 (73.5% of total) +50%
Multi‐Family 549 (16.7% of total) 1,212 (23.6% of total) +121%
Manufactured/Mobile 218 149 ‐32%
Sources: 1990 US Census and 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates. Note: decrease in the apparent number of
mobile/manufactured homes appears to be related to differences in how such units are were defined in 1990, versus today.
Median Home Values
The median home value increased by 170% nominal dollars during the twenty‐three
(23) years between 1990 and 2013, from $110,082 to $297,500. This represents an
income to home price ratio of 1:7.25, using the 2013 median household income of
$41,033 and the 2013 median home price for the City. A ratio of 1:3 is considered
affordable (see discussion below). The 1990 ratio for the City was 1:4.3. A trend noted in
the EIS prepared for the 1996 Plan was that many homes at the time were being
purchased by persons liquidating other accumulated assets. An example would be a
homeowner who already owns or has significant equity in a home and then sells a
residence to “move up” to a more expensive dwelling. This trend would appear to be
continuing today, as would the trend of in‐migrants purchasing homes with
accumulated assets and home equity.
FIGURE 24
MEDIAN HOME PRICES IN PORT TOWNSEND: 1990 to 2013
Year
1990 2000 2013
% Change
Nominal $$
(Then Current $$)
$110,082 $150,300 $297,500
+170%
Inflation Adjusted
$$
(Constant 2015 $$)
$196,840 $203,985 $298,458
+52%
Sources: 1990 and 2000 US Census and 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 70 of 73
71
Housing Affordability ‐ Countywide
According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the
generally accepted definition of housing affordability is for a household to pay no more
than thirty percent (30%) of its annual income on housing. Households and families that
pay more than this amount are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty
affording other necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.
Under this definition, more than 4 in 10 homeowners in Jefferson County may be
spending 30% or more of their monthly income on owned housing. The situation is
similar for renters, with between 40‐50% of Jefferson County renters paying more than
30% of their monthly income on rent. Figure 25, below, shows the percentage of
households in Jefferson County spending more than 30% of their income on housing for
the period 2000 to 2010.
While a majority of Jefferson County residents (70%) own the home in which they live, it
is informative to assess the ability of residents to afford a median priced home on the
market in their community. Because many of the people moving to Port Townsend and
Jefferson County come to retire, they bring financing to purchase a home that is not
dependent on the local economy, thereby driving home prices above what local wage
earners can afford to pay.
To purchase a median priced home, assuming a 20% down payment and a mortgage
payment that does not exceed 30% of monthly household income, a Jefferson County
family would face a gap of nearly $8,000, down from $32,000 in 2008.
FIGURE 25 – HOUSHOLDS SPENDING MORE THAN 30% OF INCOME ON HOUSING
Year Jefferson County Washington State
Spend More Than 30% of Income on Owned Housing
2000 25%26%
2005‐2007 31%32%
2008‐2010 19%15%
% Change 2000‐2010 19%15%
Spend More Than 30% of Income on Rented Housing
2000 48%42%
2005‐2007 46%48%
2008‐2010 46%42%
% Change 2000‐2010 ‐2%0%
Source: OlyCAP Community Needs Assessment, June 2013.
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 71 of 73
72
Selected Transportation Characteristics
Persons Commuting to Work Via Non‐Motorized Means
A remarkable 35% of workers get to work by means other than driving alone – well above
the statewide figure of 27%. This includes a 14%+ share of those who work at home, 6% who
walk and 5‐6% who bike to work. (Source: Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility
Study, January 30, 2015, E.D. Hovee & Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies). These
data suggest that the City’s efforts to promote non‐motorized and public transportation
options have enjoyed some success.
Washington State Ferry – Origins/Destinations
The 2013 Origin‐Destination Travel Survey conducted by the Washington State
Department of Transportation reached the following key conclusions regarding the
“North Sound Corridor” ferry routes of Port Townsend‐Coupeville and Mukilteo‐Clinton:
When compared to the other corridors, the North Sound Corridor has the oldest
riders (52 years old on average), and the highest percentage of retirees at 24%.
The share of weekday work/school trips has decreased from 52% in 2006 to
43% in 2013, while the share of recreation/shopping trips has increased from
26% to 32%.
Recreational/shopping trips on Saturday increased from 57% in 2006 to 71% in
2013, which corresponds with the share of weekend round trips doubling from
2006 in the North Sound Corridor.
More than half of walk‐on boardings during the PM peak period access and
egress the ferry terminal by transit, while the vast majority of walk‐on boardings
during the non‐PM peak periods and weekends access and egress by vehicle.
Saturday North Sound Corridor routes exhibited an almost 20‐point increase in
the share of responses that indicated they parked a vehicle prior to walking
aboard the ferry. (Source: 2013 Origin‐Destination Travel Survey Report,
Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division, August 2014).
Selected Data Sources & References:
United States Census – 1990, 2000, 2010
United States Census – American Family Survey, 2009‐2013
Community Needs Assessment, Olympic Community Action Program, June 2013
Port Townsend Draft Comprehensive Plan & Environmental Impact Statement,
1996
Projected Climate Change & Impacts for the North Olympic Peninsula, Adaptation
International, January 2015
Howard Street Corridor Economic Feasibility Study, January 30, 2015, E.D. Hovee
& Company, LLC and Spinnaker Strategies
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 72 of 73
73
The Health of Jefferson County – 2014 Community Health Assessment, Siri Kushner,
MPH, February 2014
2013 Origin‐Destination Travel Survey Report, Washington State Department of
Transportation Ferries Division, August 2014
7 Billion and Counting, Scientific American, October 27, 2011
Energy Return on Investment, Peak Oil, and the End of Economic Growth, David J.
Murphy and Charles A. S. Hall (2011), in “Ecological Economics Reviews”, Robert
Costanza, Karin Limburg & Ida Kubiszewski, Eds. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1219: 52–72
Energy and the Financial System, Roger Boyd, Charles A.S. Hall (editor), 2013,
Springerbriefs in Energy Analysis
Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management,
Robert Hirsch (US Department of Energy) 2005
The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality, Richard Heinberg,
New Society Publishers, 2011
Energy & the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy, Charles
A.S. Hall & Kent A. Klitgaard, Springer Publishing, 2011
Future Scenarios: How Communities Can Adapt to Peak Oil & Climate Change,
David Holmgren, Chelsea Green Publishing
Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update, Donella H. Meadows, Jorgen Randers,
Dennis L. Meadows, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004
The Post Carbon Reader: Managing the 21st Century’s Sustainability Crisis, Edited
by Richard Heinberg and Daniel Lerch, Watershed Media, October 2011
Vital Signs, The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, Volume 20, The Worldwatch
Institute, 2013
Rising Global Temperatures and CO2, Climate Central, May 16, 2014
The Schizophrenic Society: Lost in a make‐believe world while we destroy the real
one, Roger Boyd, September 2014, Friesen Press
Carbon Shift: How the Twin Crises of Oil Depletion and Climate Change Will Define
the Future, Thomas Homer‐Dixon (editor) with Nick Garrison, 2009, Random
House Canada
The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization,
Thomas Homer‐Dixon, 2006, A Shearwater Book Published by Island Press
An Illustrated Short History of Progress, Ronald Wright, 2004, Harper‐Collins
Canada
Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects, Vaclav Smil, 2010, Praeger
Attachment 4 - Planning Commission's Assessment
Page 73 of 73