HomeMy WebLinkAbout111725 City Council Business Meeting Packet- Added After Meeting•
Ili►
w
•
•
.r
�fMu
•
t
•
. ... . .........
.. .......... -- ----- ---
�.. ,. ..�
,...r
_. ,,.... ,,,,. ................ ...... .....
...........
1
0
v
oe
�
71
..
...............
O
IS,
lu
N
N
W ~
r
X L
J E
o
Z
CL
C
0
ci►
ca
-a
c
d
N
30
O N
H r
� M
O L
a
15 E
O
Vp
a)
t
L
O
M�
W
24
m
LO
M
M
d
v
C
C
V
L
O
G
J
W
W
Z
C
G
co
J_
U
Z
O
U
F-
U)
ry
r)
Q
O
F-
r2
V,
O
LL
Z
Z
(D
V)
M
�U)
N N
O
N
W�
V �
J aa)
o
az
'a
0 C
+_+ m =
a
Q .-0 1--
C
V
O
O N =
. C =
a.
QHU
Q C
LO V
o O
rU
N M
d � �
� C .
am a
a
O
Q
Q C C
ca �
a� a =
caD3
aD o
.N a a
ID
cvo
0
i O N
E *'# C
O IM M
0 :5 C6
O C r
E
C N
N
r a d
M > I--
M '� O
C
CL E
O O Q
U
C-
LU
J
ui
F-
z
J_
U
z
O
U
2
-
U)
ry
Q
O
F-
U)
O
LL
z
z
r(D
U)
N
N
O
C
.N
7
m
m
C
O
Y
L
O
d
J_
U
d
t
EL
z
W
C
m
as
PT Comp Plan — Housing & Alternative Shelter Funding
Goal 5 — Housing Opportunities for Low Income & Special Needs Populations
To identify locations for and facilitate the development of housing opportunities for low
income and special needs populations.
Policies
Policy 5.6 — Supported Alternative Shelter
Fund and support nonprofit -run, staffed alternatives to unsanctioned encampments,
including safe parking, supported encampments, tiny -shelter villages, or transitional
shelters.
Policy 5.7 — Immediate and Supplemental Funding
The city will allocate at least 10% of annual General Fund revenue growth to housing
stabilization and alternative shelters. In addition, the city will pursue a voter -approved
REET for affordable housing under HB 1867 up to 0.5%
5.7.1 Priority Use: Fully fund at least one supported encampment, including
staffing, operations, and nonprofit support.
5.7.2 Flexible Use of Excess: Remaining funds may support other housing
initiatives.
Policy 5.8 — Nonprofit Partner Support
Provide grants, technical assistance, and liability coverage to nonprofits and faith -based
organizations operating supported encampments or alternative shelters.
Policy 5.9 — Cost -of -Displacement Analysis
Evaluate the full fiscal and social cost of displacement versus funded alternatives before
enforcement actions.
Implementation Strategies
Strategy 5.11 — Housing Stabilization & Alternative Shelter Fund
Funded by 10% of annual General Fund growth and supplemental REET revenue,
supporting supported encampments, rapid -response stabilization, and nonprofit
operations.
Strategy 5.1— REET for Affordable Housing
Ensure funding first fully covers a supported encampment. Remaining funds may support
other housing initiatives. Annual reporting tracks encampment funding and remaining
allocations.
Strategy 5.J — Alternative Site Development
Identify at least two city- or partner -owned properties for supported shelters or safe
parking, in coordination with nonprofits.
Strategy5,K—Annua Shelter & Enforcement Report
The city will report on shelter capacity, alternative site usage, enforcement actions, and
funding allocation effectiveness.
Fiscal Context —Supported Encarnprnerll Costs vs. Funding
Expense Area
._._._.�._... _ _
Annual Estimate
Notes
Sweep of 40-50 person
........�........ _....
$35,000-$60,000
._..
Police time,
encampment
cleanup,
storage
Repeat police calls & ER visits
-$3,000-$7,000/person/year
Based on WA
DOH + HOST
data
Supported encampment (40-50
$170,000-$270,000/year
Staffing,
people)
operations,
admin
10% of annual General Fund
-$5.0-60,000
Immediate
growth
starting
funding,
incremental
only
ensures full
encampment;
excess flexible
Summary
• Commit to funded alternatives before enforcement
• Guarantee immediate 10% funding from General Fund growth
• Ensure supported encampment fully funded first using REET-3
• Any excess REET-3 funds may support other housing initiatives
• Require cost -of -displacement analysis and annual reporting
Nov 17, 2025 Council public hearing on draft comp plan update
Whose small town, what community preferences
Years of public process went into creating the Comp Plan with its Introduction and Direction
Statement. But the appointed Planning Commission has justified repealing and rewriting these two
sections due to "widely held community values" - required GMA verbiage - provably not factual.
People tour, vacation, move here to retire because they like what they see; one of the most beautiful
small towns in the United States.
The Direction Statement, the overarching guide for development sums up the community
preferences; the legacy, , the vision for the future. The challenge is to implement the
Comp Plan elements, goals and policies to provide the services and infrastructure for development
without losing t, w , the beauty of this little town.
The final sentence in the Direction Statement says:
"Above all, our hope for the future becomes the City's promise to maintain and enhance Port
Townsend's special character and small town atmosphere".
Are we to believe that over the last ten years the preference for "small town atmosphere" is no
longer valid? This notion taxes credibility.
In the 80s and 90s the community created the Gateway Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan using
marathon sessions of intensive, focused, highly participatory design discussion. These plans were
the precursors to the 1996 Comp Plan. Ten years ago we updated the Plan.
The recent local election results provide insight to community preferences. The voters chose
candidates who expressed values for governing: transparency, common sense, respect and
honesty. The people clearly do not want kings or autocrats to rule.
The repeal and rewrite of the plan portends a future where the City will spend its capital based on
the direction envisioned by the Planning Commission draft eliminating "small town atmosphere". Yet
the staff reported the community "thinks it [this phrase] is great" - a widely held value.
The chair of the planning commission said he was tired of hearing it and does not know what "small
town atmosphere" means and a council member quoted that it suggested xenophobia thus
impugning those who choose to live in this little town.
10 years ago we knew this was a small town, it is still a small town and in 20 years it will still be a
very small town at the end of a peninsula. How does erasing this phrase as a factor for development
alter that truth?
Recently you re -upped the golf park lands lease allowing for housing development. Here too the
community's preferences expressed by thousands have been ignored, disrespected
What kind of governance will honor the community's intentions? Maybe a strong mayor structure
would be a better choice to act with respect for the community's preferences.
-CHORUS
Port Townsend & E. Jefferson County, Washington
in collaboration with
presents, with orchestra
GEORGE FRIDERIC HANDEL'S
w,
�wv L
��k..
�` Laurie de Leonne, conductor
0
f
3 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 22
ayy ` 3 p.m. Sunday, Nov. 23
f ,FA
Chimacum High School Auditorium
91 W. Valley Road, Chimacum
TICKETS: brownpapertickets.com or
$20 suggested donation at the door
INFORMATION: ptchorus.org 36o-643-3345, 360-385-1912
a
From:
David Faber
To:
Alvssa Rodriaues
Subject:
Fw: Comments Regarding The Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
Date:
Monday, December 29, 2025 4:50:24 PM
Best,
David J. Faber
Mayor, City of Port Townsend
(360) 821-9374
From: Sylvia Platt <sylviaplatt@olympus.net>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 7:28 PM
To: CityCouncil <citycouncil@cityofpt.us>
Cc: David Faber <DFaber@cityofpt.us>; Amy Howard <AHoward@cityofpt.us>; Monica MickHager
<MMickhager@cityofpt.us>; Neil Nelson <nnelson@cityofpt.us>; Ben Thomas
<bthomas@cityofpt.us>; Owen Rowe <orowe@cityofpt.us>; Libby Wennstrom
<Iwennstrom@cityofpt.us>
Subject: Comments Regarding The Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
Dear City Counselors,
As a Port Townsend resident, I am deeply concerned about the current
condition of the comprehensive plan and the general direction the City is taking
regarding development. The document you produced (which is too long for most of
us to actually read, comprehend, and respond to) appears to silence community
voices and disengages the implementation process, a process driven by our
community's values and vision. It also removes the city's accountability for carrying
out comp plan policy according to the community's guiding principles.
What is actually driving this change and this direction? Our "housing crisis"
is usually offered as the reason and excuse for removing and loosening regulations
on development, for advantaging development, cutting trees, and turning this lovely
small town city into a City city. The only true crisis is one of affordable housing:
housing for people who already live and work here. Why are you changing the
very nature of this town to meet the housing needs of people who don't yet live here
yet?
The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan allow for Port Townsend
to become a densely populated place, not the small town with its unique character
that we, its citizens, love and cherish and a main reason many of us moved here.
The Planning Commission justifies this push for increased housing development
and density without providing enough actual affordable housing. The Madrona
Ridge and Richmond American Homes housing developments likely illustrate the
type of housing to come, neither of which addressed the needs for affordable
housing, but which, with their bland, anywhere USA, suburban feel, erode the
unique character of this town.
Equally concerning are the effects of removing so many trees and understory
plants in your efforts to allow for increased development. In this time of climate
crisis and environmental challenge, this seems especially ill-advised. Mandates
from the State have asked that cities decrease emissions and increase resilience.
Housing development is a major polluter and contributor to greenhouse emissions.
Additionally, the proposed increase of housing developments seems to contradict
the City's plan to conserve and restore natural ecosystems and urban forests and
to protect and expand Port Townsend's natural ecosystems and tree canopy
(G85). Recent new developments, like those mentioned above, have led to massive
plant removal and the clear -cutting of large swaths of mature, second -growth
forests. Instead of protecting, restoring, and expanding the tree canopy, natural
areas have been significantly damaged and destroyed. With the loss of these
forested areas, the balance of ecosystems has been further threatened and human
sanctuary and animal habitat has been lost.
For greater resilience to climate change as well as the mental and emotional
health of its residents, Port Townsend must make the protection of natural
ecosystems, and in particular its urban forests and native plant areas, a priority.
Mature trees sequester carbon and help create and "seed" up to 30% of local
rainfall. We simply cannot afford to lose any more large areas of forest. This past
summer's drought offers a window to weather conditions to come. Protecting and
expanding treed areas and understory environments is an essential strategy in
responding to the challenges of potential adverse climate crises.
A note regarding public input during this process, especially in response to
comments comments this evening about actual public input: It hasn't felt like you
have been truly interested in community input, in listening to us and our ideas; you
seem to want us to support what you've decided already (to put our little sticker
dots on your already -made plans), which feels like spinning what you have already
designed and decided.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Sylvia Platt
A society that could heal the dismembered world would
recognize the inherent value of each person
and of the plant, animal and elemental life that makes up the earth's living body;
it would offer real protection, encourage free expression, and
reestablish an ecological balance to be biologically and economically sustainable.
Its underlying metaphor would be mystery, the sense of wonder at all that is beyond us and
around us,
at the forces that sustain our lives and the intricate complexity and beauty of their dance.
Starhawk